Meta-ethical theories Flashcards
(27 cards)
What is cognitivism?
The belief that moral statements are able to be true or false
What is non-cognitivism?
The belief that moral statements are not subject to truth or factuality
What is naturalism?
Suggests that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’ can be observed and discovered empirically, in the same way that we find out other facts about the world around us.
It is a realist and cognitivist theory
What is Intuitionism?
Suggests that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’ actually exist but cannot be seen or discovered in the same way as other facts. Moral truths are self-evident and are known by intuition.
It is a realist and cognitivist theory
What is emotivism?
Rejects the view that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’ actually exist. When we make moral statements, we are simply showing our opinions and feelings.
It is an anti-realist and non-cognitivis theory
Aquinas
One version of naturalism can be found in applying the NL ideas of Aquinas. he views the world as having a God-given natural order that we can discover through observation and reasoning. everything in the world has a purpose (telos) and we can observe how good something is by asking whether it is fulfilling its purpose.
Mill
offers a different type of naturalis that is based on his utilitarianism. As we observe the world, we are able to see hat certain actions lead to pleasure and certain actions lead to pain; this enables us to discover what is right and wrong. he argues that the fact that human beiings desire certain pleasures and gods must mean that it is a fact that these things are desirable - good in themselves.
What is naturalism thought to lead to?
moral absolutism as fixed truths about the world are being discovered.
Humes criticism of naturalism
- Hume’s is-ought gap (also called Hume’s law) criticises naturalism and cognitivism. Hume said philosophers talk about the way things are and then jump with no apparent justification to a claim about the way things ought to be. I.e.you can’t get an ought from an is
- Hume’s point is that this is not a valid deduction. This conclusion does not follow, is not justified, by that premise. The fact that it is human nature to find pleasure good, only means that it is human nature to find pleasure good. It doesn’t mean that pleasure is good and that we ought to maximise pleasure.
Who criticises Mill’s naturalism and how?
G.E. Moore offers a criticism of Mill’s naturalism in his open question argument. pleasure cannot be the same thing as goodness as it is still possible to ask if the pleasure is trul good. For example, eating cake is a please, but we can still ask whether this is truly good.
What is another criticism of naturalism?
Guilty of comitting the naturalistic fallacy. This claims that if something is natural, then it must be good. We may be wrong to adequate the two, however. Nature has given us sharp teeth that makes it natural for us to eat meat - it may even bring us pleasure to do so, yet we cannot jump to the conclusion that it would be morally wrong to be vegetarian
What is a problem with Aquinas’ naturalism?
makes the assumption that there is a purpose or telos for humans, and this may ultimatley require the existence of God. Exestentialists such as Satre would reject these assumptions. if there is no definite purpose, there cannot be any definite ideas on goodness.
Which philosopher is intuitionism mainly associated with?
G.E. Moore. Moore accepts Humes point that there see,s to be a gap between facts and values (the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’), hence naturalism is wrong to suggest that moral values can be discovered.
Moores open vs closed questions
- Closed questions are questions where only one answer is actually possible
- Open questions are questions where several different answers are possible.
- Moore uses this to reject naturalism.
- If Mill is right that pleasure is good then it out to be a closed question to ask if something that brings pleasure is really good.
- This is not the case, however. Something that brings us pleasure may or may not be good; it is an open question.
- This problem arises whenever we try to define what is good in terms of something that is observable in the world.
Moores comparison with yellow
- Although Moore believes that ‘goodness’ cannot be defined, he is a cognitivist and realist
- There are truths about what is right and wrong. goodness is know intuitively: it is indefinable but self-evident
- We would struggle to define what yellow is, yet each of us knows and recognises the colour. Similarly, goodness cannot be described but we can point to many examples that we ‘just know’ are good
Moores comparison to yellow part two
- Moore argues that ‘good’ is a simple ideas. Like the concept of yellow, it cannot be broken into parts or properties.
- A complex idea might be something like a horse, where we could list the parts or break the idea down into components. We cannot list the parts of yellowness or goodness because they are simple ideas.
Criticisms of intuitionism
- Moral disagreement. Intuitionsit cliam that these truths are self-evident to all
- Seems unscientific and far fetched. It is not clear what this strange ‘faculty or power of intuition’ actually is. It is certainly not something that can be scientifically analysed. Thus, evolutionary explanations of morality such as those offered by dawkins or psychological explanations such as those given by freud may be better acounts of morality
- Not everyone can perceive yellow — and not everyone “intuits” goodness. This suggests that moral intuition may be subjective and emotional, not objective. It opens the door to emotivist or relativist interpretations of ethics, weakening Moore’s claim that “good” is a real, knowable property.
What does AJ Ayer say about intuitionism?
In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), Ayer argued that moral statements like “X is good” are not factual claims and can’t be verified — they are just expressions of emotion or attitude. He rejected the idea that we can “intuit” moral facts, because moral terms don’t describe any observable property. For Ayer, intuitionism is metaphysical nonsense — it claims knowledge of things that cannot be proven or tested
What is another criticism of Intuitionism?
Moore argues that moral truths like “X is good” are self-evident and timeless, accessed through intuition. However, history shows that moral values evolve — practices once considered moral, such as slavery or capital punishment, are now widely condemned in many societies. This time-bound nature of morality implies that moral values are social constructs, shaped by changing cultural, legal, and political contexts. Even the law must adapt to the evolving values of a society — for example, changes in legislation around LGBTQ+ rights or gender equality reflect shifts in moral understanding. This fluidity undermines Moore’s claim that “good” is a simple, unchanging property. Instead, emotivism provides a more convincing explanation: moral statements are expressions of approval or disapproval, rooted in emotional and social attitudes rather than objective truths. Thus, morality is better understood as a dynamic, human phenomenon rather than an eternal moral reality we intuit.
Emotivism general A01
Hume concluded, and Ayer agreed, that moral judgements are not judgements of reason. The origin of our moral judgements is our feelings. When we call something good or bad, we are expressing how we personally feel about it. We express non-cognitions, like emotional approval or disapproval.
Booh-hurrah
This fits with the reality of human psychology. When people engage in moral debates, it does seem that they are merely having an emotional conflict. That’s why moral debates are often described as ‘heated’.
Humes fork
Hume’s fork aims to show that moral judgements cannot be judgements of reason (neither analytic or synthetic)
- Hume’s fork claims that there are two types of judgements of reason:
1)Synthetic judgements, only known a posteriori.
2)Analytic judgements, only known a priori.
AJ Ayers verification principle
Expanded Humes fork to become the criteria of meaningful cognitive language. A statement is only meaningful if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable through experience
- Firstly, ethical statements are not analytic. Analytic statements are true by definition and cannot be denied without contradiction.
- Secondly, ethical statements are not synthetic nor empirically verifiable. Moral properties like ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ do not seem to exist in experience.
- Thus, moral judgements are neither analytic nor synthetic (Hume), nor empirically verifiable (Ayer).
reasons why emotivism is correct
- It may seem as though we are expressing moral truths, even though this is just our feelings. This is because morality is not objective but our language functions as if it were. Moral diasagreements may be about what norms we want others to adopt, not about facts.
