Meta-Ethics

Question 1

What is Normative ethics?

Answer 1

Using rules to create moral codes. It is a guidebook that deals with what is right and wrong. Helps people understand what is right and moral.

Question 2

What do Meta-ethical statements deal with?

Answer 2

What it means to claim something is right or wrong. linked to normative ethics, as it tried to understand the meaning of the terms used in the stories.

Question 3

Explain the Gun example showing normative vs Meta

Answer 3

In the statement “this is a good Gun”, normative ethics would explore whether the gun is morally good, whilst meta-ethics would tr to understand what we mean by using the word ‘good’ i.e is it good because it fulfils its purpose or because I approve of it.

Question 4

What do most people believe about ethical statements?

Answer 4

That they are true or false. They believe they can be verified or falsified using evidence from observable facts (empirical evidence)

Question 5

what are cognitivists?

Answer 5

They believe ethical language has true meaning. Believe that moral statement describe the world. they believe the words we use can be meaningful because they have a factual basis.

Question 6

Example of congitivism

Answer 6

If I say that murder is wrong, then I have given murder the property of wrongness - so my statement is Objectively either true or false.

Question 7

What theories are Cognitivist?

Answer 7

Naturalism, Non-naturalism, intuitionism

Question 8

What do Non-cognitivists believe?

Answer 8

Ethical statements cannot be meaningful because the are not subject to being true or false. moral statements are not descriptive, they cannot be described as true or false - subjective.

Question 9

Who were the Vienna circle and what did they believe?

Answer 9

Group of philosophers in the 1920s developed a theory called logical positivism - sought to look at language from a scientific perspective.

Question 10

Theories which are non-cognitivist?

Answer 10

Emotivism and Prescriptivism

Question 11

What is the naturalistic Fallacy ?

Answer 11

We cannot look at the observable world and concur how we ought to act based on it. This is what all normative ethical theories commit.

Question 12

What does ethical naturalism claim about ethical statements?

Answer 12

That they are the same as non-ethical ones - they are all factual and can, therefore, be verified or falsified.

Question 13

What example can be used to show natural statements are the same and moral ones?

Answer 13

Tony Blair was once Prime Minister of the Uk is as factually accurate as ‘genetic research is right’

Question 14

Why do naturalists claim that Tony Blair being PM is a factual as genetic research is right?

Answer 14

Because you can use evidence to support or criticise it. The same could be said for all ethical issues - just look at the evidence to test the veracity of the statement.

Question 15

What are some different types of naturalism?

Answer 15

• Aquinas’ Natural Law - observes that everything has a purpose (telos) and we can observe how good something by whether it fulfils its purpose.
• Mill’s utilitarianism - we can observe that certain actions lead to pleasure

Question 16

What is moral absolutism?

Answer 16

That there are fixed rules which must be followed such as in natural law but in the case of utilitarianism it can also lead to relativist truths about the world.

Question 17

What did F.H Bradley believe?

Answer 17

Believed that your station of life defined moral duty that you have which is observable and whilst his theory is outdated it can be seen in roles such as teachers and police officers who do seem to have a moral value attached to them.

Question 18

Counter to naturalism - Hume

Answer 18

moral claims are from sentiment not reason. he rejected the idea moral good and evil could be distinguished using reason. when we see something that is wrong, the ‘wrongness’ comes from sentiment, not observation. this is different from the Naturalistic fallacy argument.

Question 19

Philippa Foot - counter to Hume and supporter of Naturalism.

Answer 19

We can see virtue exists through people acting virtuously.

Question 20

what example does Philippa Foot give to support her claim of virtue in nature?

Answer 20

We can see the difference between a good tree and a bad one. we therefore can observe goodness through it as it must have good roots to be healthy.

Question 21

What is the example Philippa Foot gives - human

Answer 21

The photographer Mikluko-Makláy who promised the people of the Malayan archipelago that he would not take photos of them when they slept. - he could have broken it but he did not.

Question 22

Why is Philippa’s argument strong?

Answer 22

Because we can observe through our experience that some people always keep their promises which we perceive as promise keepers .

Question 23

What was G.E. Moors counter to naturalism?

Answer 23

In his book Principa Ethica (1903) - mistake to identify goodness with natural qualities. this is to commit a Naturalistic Fallacy (creator of term) - based on Hume’s fork - can’t get an ‘ought’ from and ‘is’

Question 24

What is intuitionism?

Answer 24

The idea that moral truths are indefinable and self-evident but not through observation. He believed that right and wrong could be proven true or false.

Question 25

Explain intuitionism

Answer 25

Unlike pleasure which can be answered yes or no. Good cannot be defined. - uses the analogy of the colour yellow which is a simple idea and cannot be described but we do know it when we point at yellow things. This is the same as goodness. - differs from complex ideas such as horses because these can be broken down into parts - leg, neck, head. these can be described unlike goodness and the colour yellow.

Question 26

Assessing intuitionism - Pros (3)

Answer 26

1. aligns with Humes 'is-ought' 2. There is widespread agreement on moral intuitions 3. defends the existence of moral facts allowing words to have meaning.

Question 27

Assessing Intuitionism - Cons (3)

Answer 27

1. people can have different intuitions on a topic 2. it is not clear what this strange phenomenon of 'intuitionism' is. 3.idea of an extra ability that is not able to be analysed by senses seems farfetched.

Question 28

What is emotivism?

Answer 28

The idea that moral statements are not statements or fact, but are indicators of emotional states.

Question 29

What does emotivism argue?

Answer 29

That ethical statements are non-cognitivist and therefore cannot be verified or falsified and therefore meaning less.

Question 30

what is the verification principle?

Answer 30

idea put forward by the Vienna circle that statements are only meaningful if they are analytical (true by definition) or synthetic (verified through our sense)

Question 31

Ayer's emotivism - Weak version

Answer 31

moral statements are Neither so cannot have meaning. - they are simply assertions of emotions like saying "boo to war" these are weak because they have no grounding and are simply emotional responses. This is different to saying 'I disapprove of war' which is cognitivist because that is your own opinion but claiming 'war is wrong' is to universal and cannot be taken as fact.

Question 32

Main problem with Emotivism

Answer 32

it fails its own verification test because we cannot prove its right analytically or synthetically

Question 33

What did Stevenson add to ayers theory?

Answer 33

The idea that ethical statements are not only an expression of emotion but also a way to aim to persuade others to share the same view point

Question 34

Strengths of Emotivism - differing views

Answer 34

Emotivism shows why people have differing moral views on many topics. There is no facts just expressions of emotion with the aim to persuade.

Question 35

Strengths of emotivism - avoids the NF

Answer 35

Causes great difficulty for naturalists. because It rejects that moral values are linked to anything in the world. they are merely a product of sentiment.

Question 36

weaknesses of emotivism - Renders ethical discussion as useless

Answer 36

If ethical statements are no different than normal ones and are simply expressions of opinion, the critics highlight how it just becomes a 'boo-hurrah' shouting match.

Question 37

weaknesses of emotivism - trivialises issues

Answer 37

Philippa Foot cites the example of concentration camps to prove ayer cannot be right. these ethical debates cannot be boiled down to a matter of opinion - there is a right and wrong.

Question 38

weaknesses of Emotivism - not fully what ethical statements are.

Answer 38

Hare argues that it not only about expressing opinion but also about moral language being prescriptive. - telling us what we should and shouldn't do.

Question 39

what is prescriptivism?

Answer 39

a counter to emotivism that language is not simply an emotion or a opinion which is what ayer and Stevenson suggest. but rather it Is prescriptive because it tells us how we should act, what 'ought' to be done.

Question 40

What is the universalisability principle?

Answer 40

idea that when one individual prefers one thing rather than something else the implication is this preference would be good for everyone in the same situation

Question 41

What is the example used for universalisability

Answer 41

If X prefers to care for the sick rather than get drunk, this implies x would want the same to happen to them.

Question 42

what are criticisms of Prescriptivism?

Answer 42

1. Hare himself highlights that even the application of the 'golden rule' would not deter fanatics and zealots from making apparently 'mad' ethical judgements. 2.whilst they are universalisable they are not objective. There is no way to test whether one person's preference should be followed over another person's.

Question 43

What are Mackies 2 counters to Naturalism?

Answer 43

1. relativism - too much disagreement about what is right or wrong for ethical judgements to be factual. 2. empiricism - there is nothing available to our sense which would would give us an idea about right or wrong.