Moral Philosophy

Question 1

What are the three normative ethical theories.

Answer 1

1. Utilitarianism
2. Kant’s deontological ethics
3. Aristotle’s virtue ethics

Question 2

What is Utilitarianism?

Answer 2

• Utilitarian ethical thoeries are consequentialist. This means that they say that it’s the consequences of an action that make it right or wrong.
• Derived from the concept of Utility (usefulness). An action has utility if it helps acheive a specific goal.

Question 3

Define Hedonistic Utilitarianism.

Answer 3

Hendonistic Utilitarianism is a moral theory that claims that a right action is one that maximises general happiness / minimises pain. The goal of an action is to maximise happiness and therefore happiness provides utility.

Question 4

Outline Act Utilitarianism.

Answer 4

Act Utilitarianism states that in each situation we should choose the action that maximises happiness. Act Utilitarianism is Hedonistic.

Question 5

What are the 4 key features of Bentham’s act utilitarianism?

Answer 5

• Consequentialist: Whether an action is right/good or wrong/bad depends solely on its consequences
• Hedonistic: The only thing that is good is happiness
• Universal: No individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s
• Quantative: Felicific Calculus provides a quantative method to measure happiness

Question 6

What does Bentham mean by the ‘principle of utility’.

Answer 6

The utility principle argues that an action is correct if it promotes happiness and wrong if it creates pain. Happiness is the ‘utility’ of an action.

Question 7

How does Bentham suggest we can quantify happiness?

Answer 7

The Felicific Calculus. According to Bentham, utility can be calculated with values for the following seven variables:
* Intensity
* Duration
* Certainty
* Purity
* Extent
* Propinquity
* Fecundity

Question 8

Outline Mill’s qualitative Utilitarianism.

Answer 8

Mill argued that quantative utilitarianism was a ‘doctrine of the swine’, reducing our desires to that of animals. Instead, Mill proposed that hendonistic utilitarianism should involve higher and lower pleasures.
* Higher pleasures are pleasures caused by the exercise of our higher faculties (i.e. thought, feeling and imagination), whereas lower pleasures are pleasures caused by the exercise of our lower capacities (i.e. pleasures of the body and senses).

Mill then argues that Higher pleasures should take moral priority over lower ones.

Question 9

Is Mill’s utilitarianism hedonistic, act or rule?

Answer 9

A bit of everything. Mill claims his theory is hedonistic (although some object), and in principle Mill’s description of ‘rightness’ aligns with that of an act utilitarianism. However, when it comes to moral obligation, Mill apears to provide a set of rules.

Question 10

Explain three issues with Mill’s qualatitive utilitarianism.

Answer 10

Not Hedonistic
* Though Mill claims it is, how can a theory that argues some pleasures are ‘better’ then others be truely hedonistic.

Looses Simplicity
* The apeal of Utilitarianism is it’s simplicity. Once Mill introduces the notion of quality, it’s simplicity disapears. How to we weigh up higher and lower pleasures? Does one libary = ten gyms?

Elitism
* Mill’s utilitarianism is often criticised for being culturally elitist. Mill argues in favour of the pleasures of the upper classes and is snobbishly dismissive of the pleasures of the masses.

Question 11

Summarise Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle.

Answer 11

P1. The only proof that something is desirable is that it is desired.
P2. People desire their own happiness, so individual happiness is desirable.
P3. This is the reason to believe the general happiness is desirable too.
C1.. The fact that the general happiness is desirable is the only proof we could give that the general happiness is good.
C2. Further, happiness is the only good, because all other values are just part of what makes us happy.

Question 12

How does G.E. Moore criticise Mill’s proof.

Answer 12

Fallacy of Equivocation
* Moore argues that Mill’s proof commits the fallacy of equivocation. Mill uses the word ‘desirable’ with two meanings. First Mill outlines ‘what people desire’ (i.e. anything that someone might want, good or bad), but then goes on to argue for ‘what people ought to desire’ (i.e. a moral and objective truth).

Question 13

Explain the 5 issues with hedonistic utilitarianism.

Answer 13

Difficult / Impossible to calculate
* Bentham’s utility calculus is impractical. It seems to be impossible to quantify (e.g. how intense a pleasure is) but even if we could, how do we weigh this against the other six variables? Is shorter but intense better than longer but less intense?

Issues around partiality
* Utilitarianism fails to assign any moral value to partiality. Is it wrong to save your child instead of a scientist working on the cure for cancer? Utilitarianism would say so, but surely partiality should have some weight in morality?

Issues around integrity
* Having personal integrity means you would never do action (x). However, utilitarian framework would suggest there is always a case where you should do action (x). Therefore utilitarianism undermines our personal integrity. Does integrity not have moral worth?

Tyranny of the majority
* What if killing an innocent person brought about happiness to thousands of people. Hedonistic utilitarianism would suggest that we should kill the person, but this is obviously not a morally sound decision.

Is pleasure the only good? (Nozick)
* Imagine a machine that, when you enter, simulates your idea of a perfectly pleasurable life. You will know know you’re attached to the machine and you won’t remember anything before you were attached to the machine. If you would enter the machine, this seems to prove Hendonism is correct, but if you would not (which many people choose, then pleasure can not be the only goal.

Question 14

What theories might respond to the issues with hedonistic utilitarianism.

Answer 14

• Preference Utilitarianism

Question 15

Outline Rule Utilitarianism and two advantages.

Answer 15

Rule utilitarianism agrues that we should follow general rules that tend to maximise happiness, even if they don’t maximise happiness in every situation.

Advantages include:
* Can better account for partiality and integrity (though is not based on them)
* Can stop ‘tyranny of the majority’ situations

Question 16

Explain an issue with Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 16

Collapses into act utilitarianism
* Most basic rules are too general and have legitimate exceptions. ‘Dont lie’ is a good rule, but ‘Do not lie, unless to a potential murderer’ is a better one. We can amend this rule for any case where lying would be the correct action. If rule utilitarianism is based on the rules that produce the most average happiness, they would end up being so specific that the theory would collapse into act utilitarianism.

Question 17

Outline Preference Utilitarianism and two advantages.

Answer 17

Preference utilitarianism is non-hedonistic. It suggests an action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all those affected by the action (and it’s consequences). A good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of the perferences of all those involved.

Advantages include:
* More practical to calculate (Just ask people)
* Accounts for integrity and partiality

Question 18

Explain two issues with preference utilitarianism.

Answer 18

Bad preferences
* Surely we should not attempt to satisfy bad preferences. As in ‘tyranny of the majority’, what if a large enough people have a preference to murder someone innocent? Do we count those preferences over that of the innocent man and his family?

Weighing up preferences
* Is every preference equal? It it just numbers of preferences or do the strength of preferences make a difference? Preference utilitarianism needs a way to quantify preferences in order for it to be a practical theory.

Question 19

What are the 5 key features of Kant’s deontological ethics?

Answer 19

1. The only thing that is good without qualification is good will
2. Good will means acting for the sake of duty
3. We all have a duty to follow the moral law
4. Moral laws are that which are universal
5. You can tell if a maxim is universal if it passes both formulations of the categorical imperative

Question 20

Explain what Kant means by ‘the good will’.

Answer 20

Good will means acting for the sake of duty, this is the only thing that is good without qualification. Acting in accordence with duty (i.e. doing the right thing for any other reason than duty), has no moral worth. Such as helping someone because you expect money.

Question 21

Explain what Kant means by ‘duty’.

Answer 21

Deontology is the study of duty. Kant argues that we each have a duty to follow the moral law. The moral law, according to Kant, is summarised by the categorical imperative.

Question 22

How do categorical and hypothetical imperatives differ?

Answer 22

Categorgical imperatives are unconditional and absolute. Kant claims that categorical imperatives are the building blocks of the moral law. For example, ‘do not steal’.

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional. For example, you should do your homework IF you want to do well in school. Kant is not interested in hypothetical imperatives because they are means to a personal end. Thus not universalisable and not maxims for the sake of duty.

Question 23

Outline Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative.

Answer 23

Kant states that we should “act only according to a maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contridition.”

Kant provides the following tests to check if a maxim can be willed universal law without contridition:
* Test for a contridiction in conception
* Test for a contridiction in will

Question 24

Explain Kant’s “contridiction in conception” test.

Answer 24

For a maxim to be universal law, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A law leads to a contridiction in conception if it would somehow be self-contradictory. We have a perfect duty to follow these laws.

For example, if the maxim “You should steal”, were applied universally, “everyone should steal all of the time”, this leads to a contridiction in conception because there would be nothing to steal if everyone stole all the time. “You should not steal” doesn’t, so we have a perfect duty not to steal.

Question 25

Explain Kant’s “contridiction in will” test.

Answer 25

Assuming a maxim does not result in a contridiction in conception, we must then ask wether the maxim results in a contridiction in will. A contridiction in will is a universal maxin that cannot be rationally willed.

For example, “Don’t help others in need”, doesnt lead to a contridiction in conception but it does lead to a contridiction in will. We cannot rationally will for no one to help each other because we have needed and will need to be helped throughout our lives. Such as as a baby or when we grow old. Kant says we have an inperfect duty to follow these actions.

Question 26

Outline Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative.

Answer 26

The humanity formulation. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity […] never simpily as a means but always at the same time as an end.”

Question 27

What are the 5 issues with Kant’s deontological ethics?

Answer 27

1. Tweaking the maxim to justify any course of action
2. Ignores consequences
3. Ignores other valuable motivations
4. Conflicts between duties
5. Foot: Morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives

Question 28

Outline the argument that we can ‘tweak the maxim to justify any action’ and Kant’s reply.

Answer 28

Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contridiction in conception. For example, “it’s ok to steal”. However, if we tweak the maxim slightly, such as “it’s okay to steal if your name is James and it is a Wednesday”. This no longer leads to a contridiction in conception or will, and so can be made moral law.

Reply: Kant argues that we should always idenitfy the underlying maxim in the most general terms possible before applying the categorical imperative. In this example, the underlying maxim is “do not steal” when made as general as possible. The other information can be ignored.

Question 29

Outline the argument that Kant’s ethics ‘ignore consequence’ and Kant’s reply.

Answer 29

Kant’s ethics do not consider the consequences of an action, only the action itself. However, we have a strong inclination that consequences are an important part of morality. For example, telling a lie in order to save a life would seem to be a good thing to do, but Kant says we have a perfect duty not to lie. Shouldn’t we save the life?

Reply: Kant would still insist that we have a moral duty not to lie even if the consequences are desireable. Consequences are not always good without qualification, for example, gaining pleasure from tourturing someone. Therefore we must avoid making moral decisions based on consequence.

Question 30

Outline the argument that Kant’s ethics ‘ignore other valuable motivations’ and Kant’s reply.

Answer 30

Kant argues that being motivated by duty is the only sourse of moral worth. However, there are examples when other motivations lead us to do seemingly ‘good’ things. For example, visiting your friend in hospital because you care about them. Kant would argue this is not morally praiseworthy unless you only go to the hospital because you have a duty to.

Reply: There is nothing wrong with having other motivations to follow the moral law. This is called acting in accordance with duty, and whilst it is not morally praiseworthy of itself, as long as you are still motivated by duty, any other motivations are a nice bonus.

Question 31

Outline the argument from ‘conflicting duties’ and Kant’s reply.

Answer 31

Kant argues that it is never acceptable to ignore our duties - they are categorical. But this raises the question of what to do in cases of conflicting duties. For example, Kant would say we have a duty not to lie. But what if you make a promise to someone and the only way to keep it is to lie? We have a perfect duty not to lie but either way we seem to ignore a duty.

Reply: True conflicts of duties are impossible. The agent must have made an error when formulating them. If two duties clash then at least one of them was contradictory in the first place. In the example above, making a promise to lie results in a contridiction in conception. If everyone were to make promises to lie, then everyone would lie and no one could make promises that wern’t lies…

Question 32

Outline Foot’s criticism of Kants deontological ethics.

Answer 32

Foot argues against Kant’s establishment of the moral judgment as a categorical imperative; she believes that moral judgement qualifies as a hypothetical imperative. Foot argues that it is valid to be motivated by our own ends. Such as “If you want to win the match, you ought to practise”. Foot argues that categorical imperatives can not account for all motivations that are morally prasiseworthy.

Question 33

What are the five key features of Aristotle’s virtue ethics?

Answer 33

1. Eudaimonia = the good life for human beings.
2. The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human beings.
3. Human beings are rational animals and reason is our unique characteristic. (our ergon).
4. Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason. (our arête).
5. We develop virtues through habit and training, similar to learning a skill.

Question 34

Explain what Aristotle means by Eudaimonia.

Answer 34

Edaimonia is a property of someone’s life taken as a whole. It is:
* Human ‘flourishing’ (a process or an activity that continues throughout our life).
* The final end, the supreme good, for the sake of which everthing else is done
* The most desirable of all things.

Question 35

Define Ergon

Answer 35

Ergon: The function or characteristic activity of a thing. E.g. A knife’s ergon is to cut things and a humans ergon is to use reason.

Question 36

Define Arête

Answer 36

Arête: A property or a virtue that enables a thing to acheive its ergon. E.g. A knife’s arête is sharpness and a human’s arêtes are virtues.

Question 37

Outline the doctrine of the mean.

Answer 37

Aristotle says that a virtue must lie between displaying ‘too much’ (vice of excess) and ‘too little’ (vice of deficeincy) of a particular feeling. This is called the doctrine of the mean. For example, the virtue of courage must lie between cowardice (vice of deficiency) and rashness (vice of excess).

Question 38

Outline Aristotle’s skill analogy .

Answer 38

Aristotle compares developing a virtue with developing a skill. We are not born with a skill but have the capacity to learn that skill. Developing a virtue is like:
* Start by copying others
* Practising until it is a habit
* Learning to apply it in different contexts.

Question 39

Outline Aristotle’s proof that reason is our ergon.

Answer 39

P1. Every type of person has a distinctive role / fuction in society; and every part of the body has a distinctive function.
P2. Therefore human beings must also have a distinctive function
P3. Our function cannot be growth / nuitrition (shared with plants) or sentience (shared with animals) - as these are not distinctive to humans.
P4. Being guided by reason is distinctive to humans.
C1. Therefore our function is to live guided by reason.

Question 40

Outline Aristotle’s logic that forfilling our ergon leads to Eudaimonia.

Answer 40

P1. X is good if it fufils it’s function.
P2. X Fufils it’s function well if it has the right qualities (Arête).
P3. Therefore a good human is someone with the right qualities (virtues) which enable them to live guided by reason.
P4. The good life of a human (eudaimonia) = the life of a good human.
C1. Therefore, Eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues to live guided by reason.

Question 41

What is the role of practical reasoning / wisdom in Aristotlean ethics.

Answer 41

Aristotle doesn not provide simple rules on how to behave. Instead, he suggests that we should use our phronesis (practical wisdom) to decide the correct action. Phronesis is a virtue incorporates a number of rational skills, such as the ability to deliberate and decide.

Aristotle argues, that whilst other virtues help us to establish the right goals / ends, it is the virtue of phronesis that gives us the best chance of utilising all our virtues to acheive eudaimonia.

Question 42

Outline Aristotle’s account of moral responsibility.

Answer 42

Aristotle says we should only praise or condemn actions if they are done voluntarily. In other words, you can’t criticise someone for acting unvirtuously if their actions weren’t freely chosen.

Voluntary: acting with full knowledge and intention

Involuntary/non-voluntary:

Compulsion (i.e. involuntary): being forced to do something you don’t want to do – e.g. sailors throwing goods overboard to save the boat during a storm
Ignorance (i.e. non-voluntary): doing something you don’t want to do by accident – e.g. slipping on a banana skin and spilling a drink on someone

Aristotle says a person is only morally responsible for their voluntary actions.

Question 43

What are the 4 issues with Aristotle’s virtue ethics.

Answer 43

1. No clear guidence on actions
2. Circular definitions
3. Competing virtues
4. Difference between moral good and eudaimonia

Question 44

Outline the argument that Aristotelian ethics give ‘no clear guidence’ and a reply.

Answer 44

Aristotle describes virtues in the middle of two extremes (doctrine of the mean), but this doen’t tell us what the correct action is. The right / virtuous thing in each instance is difficult to calculate and possibly subjective anyway.

Reply: Aristotle aknowledges that knowing what we need to do is very difficult. However, aristotle argues that a virtuous person can reason what do do using:
* The doctrine of the mean
* Their Phronesis

Question 45

Outline the argument that Aristotelian ethics gives ‘circular definitions’ and a reply.

Answer 45

Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which is circular. I.e.:
* A vituous act is something that a virtuous person would do.
* A virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts.

Reply: Aristotle’s definitions are not circular. Yes, a virtuous person can be defined as a person who excersises their virtues, but then virtues are defined as traits that help us to forfill our ergon and thus acheive Eudaimonia. Therefore, a virtuous person can be defined in terms of eudaimonia.

Question 46

Outline the argument from ‘competing virtues’ and a reply.

Answer 46

Imagine scenarios where applying two virtues would suggest two different courses of action. For example, a judge in a court is often torn between the virtue of justice and the virtue of mercy when sentencing. What is the correct one to follow?

Reply: Aristotle would argue that such conflicts between virtues are impossible. Virtues are not unbreakable rules and should be applied appropriately from situation to situation. Aristotle argues that our phronesis helps us to make these decisions. Improving our phronesis is how we can better apply our virtues and ultimately acheive eudaimonia.

Question 47

Outline the argument argument from ‘moral good vs eudaimonia’ and a reply

Answer 47

Imagne a nurse who spends her entire life saving lives abroad. She doesn’t enjoy her work, but does it because she believes it is good. She is constantly stressed and dies at the age of 30. The nurse did not acheive eudaimonia, but surely her life wasn’t morally bad? There is a difference between what is morally good and eudaimonia, so the theory fails as an account of moral philosophy.

Reply: Aristotle is not concerned with what is morally good, but rather how we can lead good lives. Virtues of caringness, kindness and resilience, that we might associate with morality are part of the good life, but so are honour, wealth and happiness. Aristotle does not comment on the morality of the nurse, but she clearly didn’t lead the best life possible.

Question 48

What are the four applied scenarios on the spec?

Answer 48

1. Stealing
2. Simulated killing
3. Eating animals
4. Telling lies

Question 49

How would each normative ethical theory apply to ‘stealing’?

Answer 49

Utilitarianism (act): Ok to steal if it increases happiness
Utilitarianism (rule): Stealing tends to cause more pain than pleasure, so we should have a general rule not to steal.

Kant: Never steal because, when universalised, the premise of stealing leads to a contridiction in conception. It also fails the humanity formulation because stealing from someone uses them as a means to further the theifs own goals. No excpetions.

Artistotle: Stealing is never virtuous as it never falls within the mean. This is because it deprives people of what is their fair share, which is never a virtuous thing to do.

Question 50

How would each normative ethical theory apply to ‘stealing’?

Answer 50

Utilitarianism (act): Ok to steal if it increases happiness
Utilitarianism (rule): Stealing tends to cause more pain than pleasure, so we should have a general rule not to steal.

Kant: Never steal because, when universalised, the premise of stealing leads to a contridiction in conception. It also fails the humanity formulation because stealing from someone uses them as a means to further the theifs own goals. No excpetions.

Artistotle: Stealing is never virtuous as it never falls within the mean. This is because it deprives people of what is their fair share, which is never a virtuous thing to do.

Question 51

How would each normative ethical theory apply to ‘simulated killing’?

Answer 51

Utilitarianism (act): Simulated killing where no harm is done is good if it provides pleasure for the player. If an instance of simulated killing leads to a violent act, this is not good.
Utilitarianism (rule): If simulated killing tends to cause enough instances of violence in real life, simulated killing would create more pain than pleasure and would be against the moral rules.
If not, it would not be a rule and therefore be permissable.

Kant: Simulated killing does not lead to a contridiction in conception or in will, nor does it use anyone as a means. Thus we have no duty either way. However, if simulated killing impacts on our other imperfect duties (such as compassion), it would lead to a contridiction in will and we would thus have an imperfect duty not to do it.

Artistotle: Simulated killing may encourage negative character traits (i.e. vices instead of virtues), but a virtuous person may play video games in moderation.

Question 52

How would each normative ethical theory apply to ‘eating animals’?

Answer 52

Utilitarianism (act & rule): If eating animals leads to more pleasure than suffering then it is morally good. This includes the pain inflicted on the pig. Therefore, how the animal is killed may play a role. Act utilitarians take this case by case, whereas rule utilitarianism takes the general rule.

Kant: Animals, unlike humans, do not have rational will. So, whereas kant says you should never treat humans as mere means to an end, you can treat animals as a means to an end.

Artistotle: Animals do not share in Eudaimonia and therefore are OK to eat. However, “unethical” farming may infringe on our virtues of care and sympathy leading to vices of cruetly and callousness. With that said, virtuous people can eat animals so long as they exibit the correct virtues when doing so.

Question 53

How would each normative ethical theory apply to ‘telling lies’?

Answer 53

Utilitarianism (act): Ok to lie if it increases happiness
Utilitarianism (rule): Lying tends to cause more pain than pleasure, so we should have a general rule not to lie.

Kant: Never lie because, when universalised, the premise of lying leads to a contridiction in conception. No exeptions.

Artistotle: Occasionally, lying falls within the mean. Such as telling a lie to avoid the vice of boasting and the vice of self-deprecating. However, on most occasions lying is not virtuous and honesty is considered a part of human flourishing. Our phronesis will guide us on when lying is virtuous.

Question 54

Define ‘Moral Realism’

Answer 54

Mind-independent moral facts and properties exist objectively in the world.

Question 55

Define ‘Moral anti-realism’

Answer 55

There is no such thing as mind-independent moral facts or properties, they do not exist objectively in the world.

Question 56

Define ‘Moral cognitivism’

Answer 56

Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false.

Question 57

Define ‘Moral non-cognitivism’

Answer 57

Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false.

Question 58

What are the two realist meta-ethical theories?

Answer 58

1. Naturalism (cognitivist)
2. Non-naturalism (cognitivist)

Question 59

What are the three anti-realist meta-ethical theories?

Answer 59

1. Error Theory (cognitivist)
2. Emotivism (non-cognitivist)
3. Prescriptivism (non-cognitivist)

Question 60

Outline naturalism.

Answer 60

Moral naturalism says that moral properties exist (realism) and that these properties are natural properties. I.e. moral properties can be reduced to natural properties. For example, the proposition “murder is wrong” would express a falsifiable belief that murder is wrong - where “wrong” refers to some natural property.

Question 61

How is utilitarianism a naturalist theory? What argument supports this?

Answer 61

Utilitarians, such as Mill and Bentham argue that “good” can be reduced to pleasure and “bad” can be reduced to pain. Pain and pleasure are natural properties of our world, so Utilitarianism is a form of moral naturalism.

This is supported by Mill’s proof of utilitarianism:
P1. The only proof that something is desirable is that it is desired.
P2. People desire their own happiness, so individual happiness is desirable.
P3. This is the reason to believe the general happiness is desirable too.
C1.. The fact that the general happiness is desirable is the only proof we could give that the general happiness is good.
C2. Further, happiness is the only good, because all other values are just part of what makes us happy.

Question 62

How is virtue ethics a naturalist theory?

Answer 62

Aristotle’s discussion of Ergon / function can be interpreted as a discussion of natural facts about human beings. It is a natural fact that the function of human beings is to reason. Aristotle reduces a “good life” to that which is guided by reason. Therefore, Aristotle’s account of moral “good” is reducible to a natural fact (reason is the function of humans). This makes it a naturalist theory.

Question 63

Outline Non-naturalism.

Answer 63

Moral non-naturalism says that moral properties exist (realism) and that they are non-natural properties. So, whereas moral naturalism says that moral properties can be reduced to natural properties, non-naturalism says that moral properties are a basic; they cannot be reduced to anything simpler. These basic moral properties exist independently of our minds.

Question 64

What are G.E. Moore’s three arguments for moral non-naturalism?

Answer 64

1. The naturalistic fallacy
2. The open question argument
3. Intuitionism

Question 65

Outline the naturalistic fallacy (Moore).

Answer 65

The naturalistic fallacy describes the fallacy (i.e. bad reasoning) of equating goodness with some natural property, e.g. Mill’s proof of utilitarianism. Moore argues that ‘goodness’, a moral property, can never be reduced to a natural property, such as ‘pleasure’ because this is invalid. Moral properties are already defined in the simplist terms (i.e. moral properties are not analysable any further). Hence, it is a fallacy to attempt to reduce moral properties to anything simpler, namely natural properties.

Question 66

Outline Moore’s open question argument and a reply.

Answer 66

Moore argues that the question of whether “pleasure” and “good” are the same thing is an open question. If goodness and pleasure were really the same thing, it would be a closed question.

Closed question: “Is good good?” or “Is pleasure good?”
Open question: “Is pleasure good? - This is intelligible

Reply: Moore’s argument here clearly doesn’t work because there are plenty of example where two things are in fact the same thing. Is water water? Yes. Is H20 H20? Yes. Is water H20? Also yes.

Question 67

Outline Moore’s intuitionism argument and a reply.

Answer 67

Non-naturalism claims that moral properties are non-natural properties, but this raises the question of how we acquire knowledge of them. Moore’s answer to this question is intuitionism. He argues that, via a faculty of rational intuition, we can directly reflect on the truth of moral judgements such as “murder is wrong”.

Reply: Mackie rejects intuitionism as a “lame answer” to the question of how we acquire knowledge of moral properties because it is obscure and doesn’t explain anything. Error theory.

Question 68

What are the 5 issues with moral realism?

Answer 68

1. Hume’s Fork
2. Hume’s is-ought gap
3. Ayer’s verification principle
4. Mackie’s argument from relativity
5. Mackie’s argument from queerness

Question 69

How does Hume’s fork provide an issue with moral realism? How can we respond?

Answer 69

If moral properties are exist in reality, then we must be able to make true or false cognitive statements about them. Hume’s fork claims we can only find out truths about the world through ‘relations of ideas’ or ‘matters of fact’. A moral judgement is not a relation of ideas as they can be denied without a contradiction, and nor are they matters of fact (we cannot ‘see’ that killing is wrong). Therefore, a moral judgment is not capable of being true or false and thus are non-cognitive. Hume -> Emotivism

Reply: Hume’s fork is neither a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. It fails on its own criteria.

Question 70

Outline Hume’s is-ought gap.

Answer 70

P1. Descriptions of fact describe what is the case
P2. Judgements of value prescribe what ought to be the case
P3. Descriptions of fact and judgements of value are therefore entirely different from one another - there is a gap between is and ought.
C. Therefore, you cannot draw conclusions about the value (‘ought’) based on premises about fact (‘is’).

Moral realism states that we can derive moral judgements about what we ought to do from properties in reality (what is the case). Therefore, according to Hume’s law, realism must be false.

Question 71

Explain one criticism of Hume’s is-ought gap & Hume’s response.

Answer 71

John Searle has argued that there is exceptions to Hume’s law:

P1. You promises to pay me back my £5 (an ‘is’)
C. So you should pay up.

Response, there is a hidden premise (P2) here that “we ought to keep our promises”; in which case the is-ought gap remains from P1 to P2.

Question 72

How does Ayer’s verification principle provide an issue for moral realism? Outline one issue with the principle.

Answer 72

AJ Ayer, a logical positivist, argues that a sentence is only ‘meaningful’ if it is true by definition (analytic) OR it is verifiable through experience. Moral judgements are not either, therefore they are meaningless. Or, in other words cannot be proven true or false and is non-cognitive. Ayer -> Emotivism

Issue: the verification principle is meaningless on the basis of its own criteria.

Question 73

Outline Mackie’s argument from relativity.

Answer 73

The basis of Mackie’s argument from relativity is the observation that different cultures and different people have different moral beliefs and furthermore, moral beliefs can change over time. However, if moral realism is correct, there would only be one objectively correct answer to each moral issue. So either:

a) Some people are wrong about morality and others are correct
b) Objective moral properties do not exist and different people have developed their own morals in response to cultural influences.

Mackie then argues that (b) is far more plausible due to how extreme a variance we see in moral beliefs from culture to culture.

Question 74

Outline Mackie’s argument from queerness.

Answer 74

The basis of Mackie’s argument from queerness is that moral properties are so strange (queer) that we should reject their existence. In particular Mackie is attacking non-natural moral properties. Mackie argues that these properties would be:

1. Metaphysically queer: If moral properties were to exist, they would have to have ought-to-be-doneness or ought-not-to-be-doneness built into them. Nothing seems to be metaphysically possible in this way, hence this would be metaphysically queer.
2. Epistemically queer: If moral properties exist then it is unclear how we would acquire knowledge of them. Any other natural property can be explained naturally hence why this would be epistemically queer.

Mackie then presents the abductive argument that it is more likely that these properties do not exist than it is for them to exist so strangely.

Question 75

Outline Mackie’s argument for cognitivism.

Answer 75

Mackie argues that moral discussion is cognitive in both a philosophical and ordinary language:

In philosophical contexts, Mackie argues that moral philosophy throughout history has tended to assume objective moral values. Plato & Kant for example, both argued that moral claims can be true or false.

Our ordinary language also assumes cognitivism. For example, take someone facing the dilemma of whether or not to take a job undertaking research related to bacteriological warfare. Mackie argues that to make a decision, you would put aside how you feel about it and attempt to reason wether the action is right or wrong.

Question 76

Outline Error Theory.

Answer 76

Error theory says that when we make moral judgements we express cognitive (i.e. true or false) beliefs about the external world. However, error theory claims that because moral properties don’t exist, all these moral judgements are false. (Mackie)

Question 77

Outline Emotivism.

Answer 77

Emotivism says that moral judgements express feelings and emotions of approval and disapproval. For example, when someone says “murder is wrong”, what they really mean is something like “Boo! Murder!”. Moral judgments are non-cognitive because they are not actually propositions about the world, only feelings, and are not capable of being true or false. (Ayer)

Question 78

Outline Prescriptivism.

Answer 78

Prescriptivism says that moral judgements do not exist in the world and when talking about moral judgements, we are not making propositions capable of being true or false. Instead, moral judgements aim guide action. For example, the statement “murder is wrong”, actually means “do not murder people!”. (Hare)

Question 79

What 3 terms does Hare use to describe moral judgements

Answer 79

1. Prescriptive. Moral judgements are not factual but instead aim to guide actions.
2. Universalisable. Moral judgements contain prescriptions that apply to everyone in the same situation, including myself in the future.
3. Rational. Emotivists are wrong to say that moral judgments are merely expressive. Hare argues that we can rationalise and evaluate moral judgements, aiming for consistency.

Question 80

What are the three issues with moral anti-realism?

Answer 80

1. Leads to moral nihilism
2. Accounting for moral progress
3. Use of moral language to argue and reason

Question 81

Outline the view that moral anti-realism leads to moral nihilism and a possible reply.

Answer 81

Moral nihilism is the rejection of morality and its values. Much like anti-realists, moral nihilists argue that there are no moral facts or truths and moral knowledge is not possible. However, moral nihilists argue further that morality as a whole has no foundation. Therefore an extreme nihilist might claim that we should choose to abandon our ethical practices and live free from the pretence of moral codes, doing as we please.

Reply: There are other, non-cognitive & practical reasons to behave “morally”. There is a practical benefit to acting morally and society often rewards those who do so. Other non-cognitivists might claim that moral judgements do not have to be factual to be meaningful. In the case of emotivism and prescriptivism, feelings and reason of people is meaningful.

Question 82

Outline the issue of accounting for moral progress under moral anti-realism and a couple possible replies.

Answer 82

P1. If moral anti-realism is true, then there would be nothing for morality to progress towards.
P2. Vastly different and disconnected cultures have moved towards more similar morals.
P3. Therefore, there has been moral progress
C. Thus, moral anti-realism is false.

In other words, anti-realism suggests that any changes / improvements to our understanding of morality are not really improvements at all. They are just different. If there are no moral truths then there should be nothing to progress towards and progress wouldn’t be progress at all, just arbitrary change.

Reply: This argument begs the question. We have no reason to accept that there has been moral progress (P3), If we deny the existence of morality in the first place.

Reply 2: Moral progress can be explained by our attempts to better satisfy people’s emotional attitudes (emotivism) or rational attitudes (prescriptivism).

Question 83

Outline the view that non-cognitivism (anti-realism) is not coherent with our use of moral language.

Answer 83

Moore points out that ethical language appears to involve features like moral reasoning, persuading and disagreeing. These seem to require cognitions. Disagreement requires contrasting truth claims about reality. Non-cognitive states like emotions can conflict, but they cannot ‘disagree’ because they do not represent reality.

P1. Disagreement requires contrasting beliefs about reality.
P2. Non-cognitive states like emotions cannot disagree.
P3. Ethical language involves moral disagreement.
C2. Ethical language is cognitive.