Ethics Flashcards
Memorize (113 cards)
1
Q
Describe Bentham’s utilitarianism (5 words)
A
Teleological Action-based Normative Hedonistic Quantative
2
Q
What is The Principle of Utility? (U)
A
Bentham
Outlines a moral action as one that increases happiness and avoids pain. Calculates the net utility (greatest balance of pleasure over pain achievable) from a sum of interests.
3
Q
What is the Hedonic/Utility Calculus? (U)
A
A quantitative device/way to help decide on moral actions created by Bentham, made up of 7 elements
4
Q
What are the elements of the Hedonic Calculus? (7 words) (U)
A
Certainty (predicting consequences) Remoteness (near to you) Duration Fecundity (fruitfulness, how likely to cause pleasure and lead to more) Intensity Extent (how many affected) Purity (are pleasure/pain mixed?)
5
Q
What are some strengths of Hedonic Calculus? (U)
A
Appears to be: objective, systematic, universal
‘Helpful’ guide to moral dilemmas
6
Q
What are some weaknesses of Hedonic Calculus? (U)
A
Cant be objective (individuals give situations different values)
Too many factors to be practical
Not specific to amounts of pleasure given from different things: all the same
Not clear or practical
Leads to tyranny of the majority
7
Q
What is Tyranny of the Majority? And its effect on Bentham’s utilitarianism (U)
A
When majority can terrorise minority: which technically creates greatest pleasure according to Bentham
Leads to counter-intuitive actions (e.g. gang rape) being portrayed as “moral”
8
Q
How did John Stuart Mill further Bentham’s ideas? (U)
A
Addressed types of pleasure and pain still focused on quantity for outcome
^ higher = mental (limited to humans)
v lower = physical
9
Q
What was Mill’s quote on Human vs Pig? And what does he mean (U)
A
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
He argued that people should strive for and only want intellectual pleasures. Takes more to achieve happiness, but it’s of greater value
10
Q
Why does Mill compare us to Tender Plants? (U)
A
Explained that people sometimes choose lower pleasures because they are easy, but if we do not push further, we will lose our capacity for nobler feelings. Our intellect is a tender plant and must be cared for and not neglected
11
Q
What are some strengths to Mills Utilitarianism? (U)
A
Differentiation between types of pleasure and pain
Could argue it avoids tyranny of the majority
12
Q
What are some weaknesses to Mill’s utilitarianism? (U)
A
Elitist (people dont always have luxury for higher thinking e.g. time, resources)
Makes it very limited to most of humanity
Doesnt let for hybrid of mental and physical pleasures
13
Q
Who are Competent Judges? (U)
A
People who have experienced both of the ‘things’ and have a preference (Mill)
14
Q
How did Mill show Proof of Utilitarianism? (U)
A
Everything you want, is your need for happiness at its core
Happiness is the only thing of intrinsic, inherent value. The greatest outcome
15
Q
What did Mill admit? (U)
A
Admitted that the proof of need for happiness is not deductive or certain, but it’s enough to establish utilitarianism as the reality of morality
Based on what we can see e.g. murder = sadness = morally wrong
16
Q
What is an Act Utilitarian? (U)
A
Calculates the net utility based on the outcomes of a specific situation
Relative Specific Focus on immediate Narrow E.g. drink and drive to save a dying friend: would most likely drive
17
Q
What is a strength and a weakness of an Act Utilitarian? (U)
A
Strength: adapts, flexible
Weakness: uncertain, too demanding; have to calculate every time
18
Q
What is a Rule Utilitarian? (U)
A
Adheres to rules which generally promote the net utility
General
Absolute
Broad
E.g. will follow rules like dont lie, and wear a seatbelt no matter what
19
Q
What is a strength and a weakness of a rule utilitarian? (U)
A
Strength: already established
Weakness: inflexible
20
Q
How does Nozick disprove Mill’s proof of utilitarianism? (U)
A
Pleasure machine:
Demonstrates that hedonistic utilitarianism is based on unsound foundations. If it was true, we would all hook up to the machine that would make us experience pleasure and happiness all the time.
Claims we wouldn’t because we value genuine freedom above all else
21
Q
What is Preference Utilitarianism? (U)
A
An action is good if it produces the greatest net utility of preferences (interests, wants, desires). Teleological but broader. Non-hedonistic
E.g. a person wants to be a poet as their true passion, but a lawyer for greater financial gain. May not choose the thing with greatest net utility of pleasure, because other will be personally fulfilling
22
Q
Describe Peter Singer’s views (U)
A
Preference utilitarian
Non-hedonistic
Believed in choice: given what they want, not what will necessarily make them happy (but includes everything = alcoholism)
Speciesism: believes drawing a line between humans and animals is wrong. They can suffer and have a choice so we’re the same
23
Q
What is a problem with Utilitarianism as a whole? (U)
A
Utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and intentions of the individual
(Integrity: ownership of actions, beliefs, principles, personal direction)
24
Q
Who was Bernard Williams? (U)
A
Critisized utilitarianism for asking people to step away from actions and look at them mathematically; give up personal moral integrity
Demonstrates his ideas through Jim and George
25
Explain Jim and the Natives (U)
- Jims out exploring, when he stumbles on 20 people in a tribe about to be shot by the chief
- He talks to the chief, they become friendly, so chief says he can shoot 1 and the only 19 will be set free
- Utilitarianism says Jim should shoot the one person for greatest net utility. Williams says it ignores moral integrity of Jim, who will be forever connected to his action
26
Explain George the Scientist (U)
- George lost his job and has been long-term unemployed, but has to support suffering family
- He is head hunted by a biological weapons company
- George has always been against biological weapons, but someone will get the job regardless, it's a matter of whether he can cope personally
- Utilitarianism says take the job and go against his own integrity: greatest pleasure for his family
27
Explain John Stuart Mill's defence against Williams (U)
Stated we had some sort of religious morality/social construct = life is sacred
If we were raised with the Principle of Utility, situations like George and Jim wouldn't make us feel as uncomfortable
28
Describe issues with Partiality (U)
J.S.Mill tells us to be impartial spectators
This makes the system fair but: if 2 people were drowning, your mother and a doctor on the verge of curing cancer, and you only have time to save one, utilitarianism tells you to save the Doctor. It tells us to ignore all ties
Rachels stated at this point "utilitarianism loses all touch with reality"
29
What did Coltingham say about Partiality? (U)
A parent who leaves their child to burn to save a stranger who's future contributions to welfare are greater, is not a hero, but an object of moral contempt (a moral leper)
30
Discuss the problems with Calculating Consequences (U)
1. Doesnt guide for a series of consequences (no action is stand-alone)
2. We dont know what could happen in the future
(Kant rejected teleological because unpredictable. Bentham disagreed, saying we generally have a pretty accurate guess)
31
Describe Kants approach to ethics and motivation (list of 4) (KE)
Normative
Deontological
Based on the ability to reason
Wanted to create a universal, objective guide to morality
32
What is the Good Will Theory? (KE)
Kantian deontology
The only thing of intrinsic value is a good will which means having the right intentions = motivated by duty/act put of duty
33
What did Kant mean by acting out of duty? (KE)
Acting out of duty = moral action
e.g. giving to the poor because you should. Motivated by having a goodwill and following your duty even if you dont want to
Acting in accordance to duty = not a moral action
Its motivated by inclination or self-interest with whatever it is even giving to the poor. May aline with duty but not moral; holds wrong intention
34
What is Kant's example of the Grocer? (KE)
A grocer keeps prices low, in order to attract more customers to his shop
This is not acting out of duty because it's his own self interest not doing the right thing to help others
35
Describe the difference between Hypothetical and Categorical imperatives (KE)
```
Hypothetical=
2 elements: command and desire
E.g. dont tell lies
if you want to be respected
Not objective or universal
Outcome based
Not moral. Has self interest
```
```
Categorical=
1 element: command
E.g. dont tell lies
Intrinsic values: good just because it is
Objective and universal rules
All moral commands are categorical
```
36
Explain the first formulation of the categorical imperative (KE)
The Universalisability Formulation:
Actions should be at a universal standard; live by rules everyone can live by without contradiction
2 things to look at = can it universalised? Can we 'will' it to univeralise?
37
Explain "can we univeralise our maxim"?
| maxim=action) (KE
Sometimes when we try to apply our maxim to all, it becomes self-contradicting and loses its meaning: a contradiction on the laws of nature
Have a perfect duty not to do it if it cant be universalised
E.g. (Kant's example) A person is in need of money asks a friend for a loan. They promise to pay them back, but have no intention of truly doing so. This maxim cannot be univeralised, because if everyone broke their promises; promise has no meaning = contradiction
There is a perfect duty to others to not do it. Can be a perfect duty to yourself as well e.g. killing yourself
38
Explain "Can we 'will' it to universalise?" (KE)
as well as it being possible, we must 'want' our maxim to be universal (as rational beings not individuals)
e.g. Kant's example: not helping others. It is technically possible to universalise, but rational beings wouldn't 'will' it. Everyone would have/will need help in their lives
contradiction of the will = becomes an imperfect duty not to do it (not moral but not necessarily immoral)
It's expected on humanity to help
(can also be an imperfect duty to yourself e.g. Kant's example = come into a lot of money and don't want to do anything. will be detrimental to yourself eventually)
39
What's the difference between Perfect and Imperfect duties? (KE)
Perfect:
- results of universalisability in laws of nature
- absolute, clear, more important than imperfect
- we are immoral if we do not keep to our perfect duties
Imperfect:
- result of universalisability of the will
- moral if done, but not necessarily immoral if not done
- unclear
40
Explain the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative (KE)
The Humanity Formulation:
Respecting the dignity of rational moral agents
Humans have intrinsic value and shouldn't be valued instrumentally. Should not be used as a means to an end
Kant believed that humans have dignity + value because they are independent moral agents.
Less rational beings (e.g. children/those with learning difficulties) have only a partial status in the moral world as they can't reason as well. Less moral value and need to be 'protected'
41
What's the 'key idea' about Kant's 2nd Formulation (Humanity Formulation)? (KE)
We must always allow for humans to act as a rational moral agent
If we deny them this by:
-withholding information
-telling lies etc
Then we are simply using them as a means to an end
Want people to be: aware, active in decision making, processing
Not: passive, unsure of situation, being moved/used by another
42
List some (4) Strengths of Kantian Ethics (KE)
1. Absolute Nature: situation is irrelevant, avoids calculating confusion like utilitarianism
2. Deontological: look at intention, can't always predict consequences, a posteriori (after experience)
3. Intrinsic worth and dignity: doesn't exploit people or use them. More human than utilitarianism
4. Universal
43
List some (5) Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics (KE)
1. Clashing and competing duties
2. Ignoring value of some motives (e.g. love, kindness, friendship)
3. Morality is more hypothetical than categorical
4. Not all universalisable maxims are moral and vice versa
5. Only focus on intention but consequences matter
44
Describe Aristotelean Ethics
| VE
Person based: centred around the agent and their character instead of actions. Not teleological or deontological
Aretaic: ethics of virtue/excellence
Normative
45
What is The Lesser Good
| VE
Subordinate goods
Only good as they lead to other goods
Instrumentally good
46
What is The Ultimate Good?
| VE
The goal of all action
Eudaimonia: the highest good for all humans. 'The Summum Bonum' (final end). Can be described as happiness but more, like flourishing (vibrant, continuous)
47
Explain Socrates' Leaky Jars
| VE
Describes hedonism as a leaky jar; constantly chasing, never satisfied. Not plugging the holes just desperately refilling with water. A need like addiction, ultimately unfulfilling
Eudaimonia is reaching a steady level of contentment because you're doing the right things (plugging holes). It's lasting, satisfying, calm approach to life. Pleasure should never be the aim, only a by-product of the good
48
What is The Function Argument?
| VE
1. everything has a function
2. therefore humans have a function
3. a function is something distinctive to an object
4. this can't be to grow as we share this with plants
5. or perceive as we share this with animals
6. the distinct feature of humans is their ability to reason
7. must be the human telos
8. Anything is good if it fulfils it's telos
9. Therefore the function of humans is to reason well (phronesis)
49
Describe The Function Argument (3 bullet points)
| VE
- scientific
- empirical
- observes that things have form (e.g. knife = handle (holding) blade (cutting). A good object is one that fulfils purpose
50
Explain The Fallacy of Composition
[problems with the function argument]
(VE)
This is a criticism of the logic of the argument. Aristotle moves from individual cases of function (e.g. eyes and ears) to applying the same logic to human function as a whole
Deemed inappropriate
Russel: claims all humans have had a mother, but does not make sense to say the human race has one
51
Explain the question 'Do Humans have Purpose?'
[problems with the function argument]
(VE)
Sartre: existentialism (accepting no reason or purpose for humans) essence precedes existence. (what it is in thought comes before what it is)
Reflects on the idea that there is a human purpose
Without a God, there is no being to give humans an essence
For Sartre, humans have more dignity than an object like a knife as we make our own function. Morality is not required at all
52
Explain the relationship between virtues and function (VE)
Our function is to reason, but ultimately reach eudaimonia = surrounds the state of our souls.
Virtues belong to the soul and need to work together to enable humans to function well and achieve eudaimonia
Soul made of two parts: non-rational (12 moral virtues e.g. courage, temperance, developed through habituation) and rational (9 intellectual virtues e.g. wisdom, phronesis, developed through education)
53
Evaluate clashing and competing duties (KE)
Moral stalemate
example: the axe murderer. you have a friend who asks frantically if they can hide in your house. you promise to hide and help him. an axe murderer knocks next asking you where the friend is. you have a duty to both keep your promises and not tell lies. two perfect duties are present but clash with one another
(or car crash analogy)
Ross: prima facie duties (at a glance) = help others, keep promises etc. but through intuition we can order and prioritise
however, that takes away from the theory being deontological and deductive. uncertain
Kant denies C&C duties even exist. claims that duties only exist without contradiction otherwise they can't be universalised. by definition, they can't clash
Rachel's disagrees; Dutch fisherman sailing under Nazi occupation, telling lies vs murder of innocents
even if Kant claims they don't exist, he doesn't explain what action would be moral in this situation
54
Evaluate consequences matter (KE)
Intuition that consequences matter, not just intention/acting out of duty
e.g. parent A reads to a child because they enjoy it. Parent B reads to the child because they feel like they have to. Kant claims parent B is morally superior as they are acting out of duty
too cold and systematic
Kant defends himself saying consequences don't matter because we can't predict them
Rachel's disagrees and claims we can predict consequences with accuracy
55
Explain the skills analogy
Can become a "moral expert"
Can learn how to be virtuous like you can learn how to for example learn to read. Practice
Follow moral experts/role models
Inspired >> Practice >> engage and enjoy, part of you >> become an expert/role model
56
Explain the Doctrine of the Mean (VE)
The point between deficiency and excess
e.g. Deficiency: cowardice
Virtue: courage
Excess: recklessness
Excess and deficiency are vices
57
Cognitivist/cognitivism
view that moral judgments are propositions that can be known. They are capable of being true or false
58
Non-cognitivist/non-cognitivism
Moral judgements can't be known. They do not say anything true or false about the world
59
Deontological
theory that morality lies with the intentions
60
Disposition
VE: tendency to behave a certain way. More than a one-off action
61
Emotivism
non-cognitivist theory meaning moral judgements do not refer to anything in the world, but are expressions of feelings
62
Eudaimonia
The ultimate good. A flourishing person.
63
Good will
KE: only intrinsic good. Acts for the right reasons. Act out of duty
64
Hedonism
Striving for pleasure/morality based around ultimate pleasure
65
Maxim
action
66
Meta-ethics
looking at the meaning of morality
67
Realism
morality refers to something real e.g. pleasure, happiness, utility. Morality is discovered
68
Anti-realism
moral terms aren't real/tangible, but are used for other purposes e.g. expression of feelings (emotivism)
69
Naturalism
moral concepts can be explained in terms of natural concepts e.g. happiness = good
70
Nihilism
No values, or rejection of morality under the belief that values are groundless
71
Normative
a theory that guides your actions to make moral judgements (applied with ease to practical life)
72
Prescriptivism
a non-cognitivist view that moral judgements are to prescribe actions (steer people away or to certain behaviours)
73
Proposition
a statement that makes a claim about the way the world is
74
Relativism
view that moral judgments vary according to the social context in which they are made (moral standards are different in different societies because of how they were raised)
75
Summum bonum
VE: Latin phrase 'the highest good'
76
Teleological
belief that morality is based on consequences
77
Utilitarianism
hedonistic theory claiming morality lies in pleasure - what causes happiness etc is good
78
Utility
welfare, happiness, pleasure etc
79
Verificationism/Verification principle
logical positivism claims that for a proposition to be meaningful it must be verifiable.
The principle was a rule put forwards by the Vienna Circle claiming that a proposition is only meaningful if it is verified
80
Vice
VE: character trait to be avoided. Taking the person away from eudaimonia
81
Virtue
VE: character trait to develop to achieve eudaimonia
82
Virtue Ethics
based on Aristotelian ideas
| develop virtues to become eudaimonia (ultimate good)
83
Habituation
more than one-off actions
habit
a tendency to act in a particular way
84
Quantitative
relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality e.g. Bentham
85
Qualitative
Looking at quality of happiness rather than quantity e.g. John Stuart Mill
86
Evaluate Ignoring value of some motives (e.g. love, kindness, friendship) (KE)
Kant claims that the only intention that is moral is acting out of duty
acting out of love or kindness is 'self-interest'
doesn't take into account human emotion
e.g. if a friend visits you in hospital would you rather it be because the care about you, or because they feel like they have to?
87
Evaluate how morality is more hypothetical than categorical (KE)
Kant claims that categorical commands are the only moral actions
Phillipa Foot disagrees: can't be applicable in all situations in life. decisions are very desire based (hypothetical), duty is less immediately intuitive. people respond to situations with compassion rather than duty
Not hedonism, but people's general desire for happiness, justice etc. End goals are about a better world, not duty
Claims it's too robotic and unmotivating
Kant sees morality as a chore
88
Evaluate why not all universalisable maxims are moral (KE)
The categorical imperative explains what you can't do, not what you should do
Trivial ideas like 'don't step on cracks' can end up being 'moral actions'
very based on how your maxim is worded
first formulation doesn't extract moral duties very well
Kant admits there is a loophole and things can sometimes get through that aren't really duties. defends that trivial situations shouldn't be put in the formulations
His defence highlights how unhelpful it can be. We could change maxims to make them suit ourselves e.g. 19year old A-level students with short hair and glasses who take philosophy, English, and film studies should be given their predicted grades
just because it's universalisable, doesn't mean it's moral
89
What is the Role of Feelings in Aristotelian ethics? (VE)
Unlike Kant, feelings are very central:
- motivate us to act (e.g. empathy)
- inform/guide how we act (e.g. reasoning)
- reflection can lead to different actions (e.g. guilt and remorse)
90
Can Aristotelean Virtue Ethics give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act? (VE)
Yes:
- Doctrine of the mean guides action in specific context
- Phronesis = practical reasoning gives sufficient guidance. Should trust own experiences and expertise all under practical reasoning
No:
- Aretaic = not focused on actions, just development
- Application is unclear, unhelpful when trying to work out if an action is moral (e.g. abortion = which decision follows courage?)
91
Explain clashing and competing VIRTUES (VE)
| [problems with virtue ethics]
Two virtues can be required, but seem contradictory
e.g. someone suffering in the last days of a terminal illness = compassion virtue motivates you to assist death, justice virtue motivates you to uphold the law
However: your character should be prepared for any situation. Your phronesis will guide you towards an answer
However this causes VE to lose uniformity
92
```
Explain Circularity (VE)
[problems with virtue ethics]
```
Involved in defining virtuous acts and persons in terms of each other
- What is the virtuous action?
- An action done by a virtuous person
- Who is the virtuous person?
- The virtuous person is one acting virtuous?
This cycle of questions can then repeat forever
DEFENCE: Aristotle says there's much more to a eudaimon than the acts. Excellence must be exhibited in all areas of life e.g. acts, thoughts, choices
93
Must a trait contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue? (VE)
[problems with virtue ethics]
We think virtues are traits that contribute to a flourishing character
Habitually modest acts ---> Virtue of modesty (trait) ---> helps us flourish
But
Habitually lying ---> Virtue of liar (trait) ---> doesn't help flourish
e.g. in a war torn country, lying is necessary and you become good at it
Therefore Aristotle is wrong for linking traits to eudaimonia
94
How may Aristotle respond to the criticism "Must a trait contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue?" (VE)
[problems with virtue ethics]
- Things like lying etc, aren't virtuous, and should only be addressed as vices and avoided if possible
- Eudaimonia is something we can achieve, only if given the opportunity to do so. Wars, famine, poverty etc are situations eudaimonia/flourishing aren't possible in
95
Describe the problem of "individual good vs moral good" (VE)
| [problems with virtue ethics]
Some see virtue ethics as focusing on individual good, rather than ethical decisions making. It's too selfish, contradicting what it's supposed to be guiding. Lacks benevolence.
Defence: many argue this idea misrepresents the views. Aristotle is critical of self-interest motivations
96
Explain the moral responsibility of a voluntary action (VE)
Voluntary = chosen, intended, informed
e.g. Lying to parents
= Completely morally responsible
97
Explain the moral responsibility of an involuntary action (VE)
Involuntary = external factors control decision, origin is not the agent, physically compelled
e.g. try to save someone from drowning but the water drags them away
=not morally responsible
98
Explain the moral responsibility of a mixed voluntary action (VE)
mixed voluntary = not freely chosen, partly intended, coerced, limited options
e.g. a woman helping criminals when her family is threatened
= Partly morally responsible (morally responsible, but may be pardoned by others through understanding of the situation)
99
Explain the moral responsibility of a non-voluntary action (VE)
Non-voluntary = accidental, unintended, misinformed
e.g. Oedipus (greek story - married mother without knowing)
= Partly morally responsible (morally responsible, but if we regret and act differently in the future, we may be pardoned)
100
Describe moral anti-realism? (ME)
- No mind-independent properties
- Created, not discovered
- Subjective
- No moral facts
- Nothing to measure morality by
Language:
- Doesn't make claims like "eating meat is wrong"
- Tend to be non-cognitive
- Not making claims, just sharing a moral opinion
101
What are the two arguments of error theory? (Mackie) (ME)
1. Argument from relativity
| 2. Argument from Queerness
102
Explain the Argument from relativity (Error Theory) (ME)
Why is it that there are different moral codes in different cultures e.g. being gay
1. Is it because only some cultures have discoverable moral facts about the world?
2. Or is it because morality is just an invention of different societies?
> Mackie claims the second option is more credible (arguments from queerness reiterates this)
103
Explain the Metaphysical Argument from Queerness (Error Theory) (ME)
1. Metaphysical:
- What evidence of thee moral properties existing is there?
- We know what properties such as size, shape etc are like, but not moral properties
- Properties like good and bad have no motivational power unlike natural properties like a tree
- If there's such a thing as moral properties, it's odd that we don't have any knowledge of them
104
Explain the Epistemological Argument from Queerness (Error Theory) (ME)
Epistemological:
- How would we be able to know about these properties?
- We can access things with particular properties through our senses
e. g. We can tell the utensil we want by looking and feeling
- What factually do we have to access moral properties which cannot be accessed in the usual ways?
- If it did exist, it would be weird and noticable
105
List what the two arguments from queerness are, and what they conclude (ME)
Metaphysical and Epistemological
In summary, claims morality is internal. Moral facts do not exist, but we act like they do, making them cognitive, but really we aren't giving information about right and wrong, because it's all subjective
106
Explain Emotivism (ME)
- Ayer
- Anti-realist, non-cognitive
- Ethical terms (good, bad) = Pseudo-concepts (false)
- Ethical claims are to express the feelings of the speaker about a situation or action
> good/bad = ethical symbols, but add nothing in terms of information, only express emotion (like exclamation marks) and try to get others to feel the same
- Stevenson
> developed Ayer's ideas
>claims some words have a dynamic/aura (hold power)
>e.g. tree vs fuck, table vs evil
> ethical terms create reaction, which can be used to bring about a change in someone
107
Explain Prescriptivism (ME)
- Hare
- Anti-realist, non-cognitive
- Purpose of moral language is to recommend or tell people how to act
e.g. "eating animals is wrong" = "don't eat animals"
- Moral claims are imperatives
> Most imperatives are one off e.g. turn off the light, whereas moral commands are more general and universal e.g. don't lie
> Warnock's example: "It was wrong for Jenkins to get drunk at his daughter's wedding" isn't just about Jenkins: implies it's wrong for a close person to get drunk at an important event. No moral one offs.
108
What are the Problems with Anti-Realism? (ME)
1. Can anti-realism account for our use of moral language?
2. The problem of accounting for moral progress
3. Whether anti-realism becomes moral nihilism
109
Evaluate the problem with Anti-Realism "Can anti-realism account for our use of moral language?" (ME)
- Emotivism doesn't allow for moral debate or discussion. If emotivism is correct, then all we are doing when expressing moral views is showing feeling or trying to persuade others to feel the same way. In reality, we base our claims on evidence/reasoning (pain = suffering of animals)
- We anchor moral claims to the world by attaching evidence by using language.
- Warnock:
> says that emotivists saying they use language to convince and persuade is untrue
> says you only use moral language when you know they exist? doesn't make sense. If you agree there is no discussion. The moral language brings intensity, it's clear words have dynamics; formal, informal, if I wrote fuck here, odds are there's a reaction. Confrontation differs form person to person, but you can't generalise it, for Warnock to try is just naive.
- Prescriptivism (how to act, moral claims = imperatives) Warnock says that's very limited. In reality, we use moral language in so many other ways like: advise, condemn, confess, implore. Too narrow in it's explanation. However, these all command in a way (recommend)
110
Evaluate the problem with Anti-Realism "The problem of accounting for moral progress" (ME)
- We generally accept that there have been discoveries and break throughs in terms of morality; but anti-realists struggle to explain this because they claim that there are no objective moral rules or framework to measure morality against.
> Doesn't seem right that we cannot judge one culture's moral system as lacking or worse than ours e.g. women's + gay rights in Russia
- However: an anti-realist could measure one system against another - as two sticks can be measured against each other. We can say that one society is an improvement on another without claiming an absolute, universal yardstick.
111
Evaluate the problem with Anti-Realism "Whether anti-realism becomes moral nihilism" (ME)
- Nihilism = the idea that there are no objective mind - independent moral properties or value. All moral practices should be abandoned as empty and meaningless shams e.g. existentialism (Nietzsche, Satre)
> Nietzsche: "Beyond Good and Evil"
> Sheep - be kind, give to charity, morality is needed only for the weak
> Tigers - morality restricts need to "break free", stronger, don't need morality, overcome it
> Satre: Authentic or inauthentic
> claims there is no moral system and we cannot make moral judgments. The only judgements one can make is about authenticity. If a person accepts that they are free and completely responsible for all they do, they are authentic.
- There are foundations of nihilism in anti-realism as they both reject the idea of a mind-independent moral system
- However: nihilism is much more radical and negative about the status of moral values. For some anti-realists, morality has a purpose and function. It is a positive feature of society (e.g. Ayer, emotivism and Hare, prescriptivism). Morality is useless in terms of cognitivism, but it's still a useful tool.
112
Outline Mackie's Error Theory
- Anti-realist
- Cognitive
- Meta-ethical
- The claim that we act as if moral claims have cognitive value, when really they don’t, moral properties don’t exist, all moral claims are false
-
113
What is utility? (U)
It refers to an action's usefulness in achieving the greatest pleasure over pain (Bentham)
