Meta Ethics Flashcards
“Evaluate the claim that ethical statements have meaning” essay
A: just an expression if emotion. A.J Ayer verification principles. Not synthetic or analytic. Strong argument as stating ‘murder is wrong is not verifiable.
CA: MacIntyre: whether it is empirically verifiable does not determine what makes a statement meaningful. If it has a profound effect on people. Object passed down ‘brave = good’ meaningful
E: prescriptivist approach Stevenson and Hare. Boo-hurrah theory. Strong argument as explain why people have different views on what is right and wrong
A: Hume: is ought problem. Naturalistic fallacy. Naturalism says statements do have meaning as they can be observed
CA: Moore people would use their intuition to come to the same conclusion about statements. Yellow. Pritchard: when they disagree on moral fact their morality hasn’t developed. W.D Ross prima facie
E: does not take into account cultural different. Therefore no objective meanings of what good and bad is.
“Good is best explained by emotivism” essay
A: agree with statement. Emotivism non-cognitive & anti-realist. Ayer: synthetic and analytic if not has no meaning. No one can prove them. Influenced by Hume. Related to feelings. Good as explains why people always disagree on the definition of what good. Boo hurrah theory.
CA: Some believe that good is best defined by naturalism. E.g. Mill util saw that we observe the world and some actions lead to pleasure, others lead to pain. Doesn’t reduce morality to a matter of taste or opinion. Debates discussing whether killing is wrong is not the same as discussing food preferences
E: Hume rejects this due to the is/ought problem. We move too easily from factual statements to moral statements. There is a fact value distinction . Good cannot be observed. Emotivism rejects the issue of the naturalistic fallacy
A: Emotivism recognises that disputes in ethics are often driven by feelings rather than reasons. Echoes the work of Daniel Goleman: emotional part of our brain kicks in before the reasoning part. Also good and similarly is relative to time and place. FGM is some places.
CA: intuitionism. Moore: good is a simple idea, it cannot be broken into parts. There is an absolute moral truth. Like the colour yellow we just know what is good. Not emotion. Disagreement is people having different levels of practical knowledge
E: If moral values are not empirical and we just know. Little to distinguish this from emotivism since it is a certain feeling that tells us what is right and wrong.
Naturalism
- realist & cognitive
- Good, bad, right, wrong can be observed and discovered empirically, using our senses in the same way which we discover other facts about the world around us using empirical evidence.
- Natural law: We have a God given natural order that can be discovered through observation. We can observe how good something is by asking whether it fulfils it’s purpose.
- Utilitarianism: we are able to see that certain actions lead to pleasure and others to pain. He argues the fact that humans desire certain pleasures suggests that these things are good in themselves
EVAL
- Hume: ‘is-ought’ problem: we move too easily from factual statements to moral statements
- G.E Moore: naturalistic fallacy. Claims that of something it natural than it must be good. E.g. nature has given us sharp teeth to eat meat. But we cannot jump to the conclusion that being vegetarian is morally wrong as a result
- G.E Moore: open question argument: pleasure cannot be the same as goodness. He argues there are two types of questions: closed questions - where only one answer is actually possible e.g. “does a triangle have three sides”. An open question are questions with several answers. If pleasure is good then it ought to be a closed question
- Some theories especially natural law makes assumptions about the world - e.g. that there is a telos of the world
Arguments for cognitivism:
- there is a widespread agreement on what is good and bad.Broadly similar across may cultures.
- if ethical terms describe something real then we can speak intelligent about the ideas of morals progress. If there was no such thing as right or wrong it wouldn’t make sense to say that there has been progress
- if there were no such thing as right or wrong then that would require that we are required to tolerate answers to different issues of right and wrong.
- Neizsche: can lead to nihilism: where nothing really matters
Intuitionism
- G.E Moore: ‘goodness’ cannot be defined. There are truths about what is right and wrong. Goodness is known intuitively - self evident
- Uses he example of the colour yellow. We wouldn’t know how to describe yellowness but we recognise the colour and are able to point it out.
- ‘Good’ is a simple idea. It cannot be broken into parts or properties
- Pritchard: argued that some people’s intuitions are better than others. When people disagree about morality, someone’s moral thinking hasn’t been fully developed
- W.D Ross: prima facie duties: you will know by intuition which one to prioritise
EVAL:
- seems unscientific: evolutionary expiations from Freud or Dawkins may be better
- basically emotivism
- intuitionism makes ethics seem like maths but the difference is mathematicians agree.
- Nietzsche: people’s intuitions differ. One person may see something as a good thing whereas the other may see good as ethical colour blindness
Emotivism
- A.J Ayer: a statement is only meaningful if it passes the verification principle. Moral statements cannot be logically proven so they are factually meaningless
- Hume: any books that do not contain a prior or a posteriori knowledge should be ‘committed to flames’ - Humes fork
- Ethical statements are just an expression of personal preferences
- Hare: prescriptivism - moral language always has an aim to persuade other to adopt your view
- Daniel Goleman: recognises that disputes in ethics are driven by feelings rather than reasons. He argues hat the emotional part of ir brain kicks in before the reasoning part kicks in.
Mackie:
- there is too much disagreement on what is right and wrong for there ethical judgments to be a factual matter
- supports Hume in saying there is nothing available to our senses to give us ideas of right and wrong
- Queerness argument: the existence of objective mora values would be metaphysically strange, unlike ordinary facts which are describable within a framework of science. Does not align with any known natural properties or phenomena.
- they are unverifiable
EVAL:
- emotivism renders debate in the discussion of ethics useless - ‘boo-hurrah theory’
- Philipa Foot: look at the concentration camps surely that would be objectively wrong.
Is the discussion about the meaning of ethical terms the most important debate in ethics?
No
- MacIntyre: criticises meta ethics - has lead to the emotivism question which has proved harmful as ca led to nihilism.
- The question of what should we do still remains regardless
- On a practical level it has little relevance today - does not effect real world decisions
Yes
- a good place to start as it is important ro address the question of whether objective goodness exists before proceeding to a normative or applied level
- Wittgenstien: can lead to misunderstandings
- Don’t want nihilism
