Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

paper 1 moral content > moral realism > Flashcards

moral realism Flashcards

1
Q

what is cognitivism and non cognitivism

A
  • cognitivism = FACTS, truth apt prepositions, DESCRIBES WORLD = true or false depending on the world
  • non-cognitivism = REASON, expresses EMOTION
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what would a C and NC say about moral language

A
  • C = moral language expresses truth apt perpositions, aims to describe the world so can be true or false depending on this
  • NC = moral lang is neither true nor false because it doesnt aim to describe the workd because moral language doesnt express trueth apt prepositions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what does it mean to say that morality comes from reason/emotions/society and which philosopher is associated with each

A
  • reason - kant - reason to deduce what is right or wrong
  • emotions - hume - moral beliefs stem from our feeelings/desires
  • society - moral realism - moral beliefs are formed over time, particualar to the society they form
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is moral realism
-mid

A
  • moral truths/properties/facts exist MID
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is moral anti realism

A
  • claim that moral truths/properties/facts exist MD
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is moral naturalism
- goodness…
- what is mid?
- how can it be discovered?
- examples of thoeries?

A
  • goodness can be reduced to happiness
  • utilitarianism, virtue theory
  • mpral properties = MID
  • can be reduced to natural properties and discovered using our 5 natural senses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is moral non naturalism
-goodness…

A
  • goodness cannot be reduced to happiness
  • moral properties = MID, not reducable to natural properties but exist alongside them
  • so we need a NON NATURAL SENSE to detect them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are the 3 strengths of naturalism
-i, guide, evil

A
  • intuitive
  • allows for moral theories to guide our actions
  • allows for us to call out/address injusticies/evil in the world
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what are the 2 naturalist theories

A
  • utilitarianism - reduces goodness to the psyhological state of happiness
  • virtue ethics - reduces goodness to the physical and psychological state of flourishing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

outline the open question argument from moore who was a non naturalist
P1)any attempt to define x as is x good is a C1)no concept of x is synonoumous withC2)goodness is notC3)moral properties are not

A

P1) any attempt to define “x” as “is ‘x’ good” is an open question
C1) therefore no concept of “x” is synonymous with goodness
C2) therefore goodness is not reducable to any natural property
C3) therefore, moral properties are not reducible to any natural properties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

summarise moores open question argument and its implication for moral naturalism

A
  • moore claims goodness cannot be defined as pleasure because goodness CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN SIMPLER TERMS
  • when utilitarians ask “is pleasure good?” they are asking “is pleasure, pleasure?” and the answer must be YES
  • so moore thinks U and therefore MN is incorrect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

how is the conclusion of the open question argument from moore a naturalistic fallacy

A
  • it is a fallacy to claim that good can be reduced to any natural property = moore
  • naturalistic fallacy = when one REDUCES GOODNESS TO ANY NATURAL PROPERTY
  • fallacy = ERROR in reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

explain moores understanding of what good means given that it cannot be a natural property

A
  • goodness = cannpt be explained in simpler terms
  • so it must be a fundamental property in its own right
  • must be a NON NATURAL one so we need a non natural sense to detect it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

how does moores open question argument and naturalistic fallacy lead to moral non naturalism
-moral naturalism fails to
- goodness =
- just because, doesnt mean

A
  • moore shows moral naturalism fails to reduce goodness to any natural property
  • goodness = a non natural property
  • just because moral naturalism is false doesnt mean moral realism is false too
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

moore proposes his own form of moral non naturalism called intuitionism
what is this?

A
  • claim that we have a MORAL INTUITION
    —> a non natural sense which detects non natural moral properties
  • “we know goodness when we see it”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what are 4 strengths of moral naturalism

A
  • intuitive
  • can be scientifically investigated
  • allows for us to call out injustices/evil
  • allows for our actions to be guided by moral theories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are the the 2 weaknesses of moral naturalism
nf, oqa

A
  • the open question argument
  • naturalistic fallacy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are the 3 strengths of moral non naturalism

A
  • intuitive
  • allows for us to call out evil/injustice
  • allows for us to be guided by moral theories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what are the 4 weaknesses of moral non naturalism

A
  • cant be scientifically investigated
  • how do we know if our intuition is correct
  • what if we have conflicting intuitions
  • what if our intuitions conflict with others
19
Q

what is the purpose of humes fork

A
  • a way of classifying knowledge
20
Q

what are the two prongs of humes fork

A
  • relations of ideas
  • matters of fact
21
Q

what three statements can be classified as relations of ideas

A
  • analytic
  • necessary
  • a priori
22
Q

what three statements can be classified as matters of facts

A
  • synthetic
  • contingent
  • a prosteriori
23
Q

what is the implication for statements that do not fit into humes fork

A
  • they arent knowledge
  • they are “consigned to the flames” —> useless
24
Q

what is the status of moral language according to humes fork

A
  • neither analytic nor synthetic = cannot count as knowledge
  • moral language = non cognative
  • language cannot describe the world
25
Q

outline humes argument from motivation
P1, P2, C1

A

P1) moral judgements motivate us to act
P2) beliefs and reasoning do not motivate us to act experience does
C1) therefore moral judgements are not beliefs

26
Q

what is the implication for moral judgements after the argument from motivation

A
  • reason deosnt motivate us, experience does
  • we know of suffering but need to experience it to get an emotional response to motivate us
27
Q

give an example of a descriptive “is” statement and prescriptive “ought” statement

A
  • is = there is a hgih crime rate in london
  • ought = therefore we ought to reduce the crime rate in london
28
Q

what does the is-ought gap claim about moral judgements

A
  • judgemenst of reason = what is the case
  • judgements of value = what ought to be the case
  • diff catagories of moral vs descriptive statements
  • since reason cannot motivate us, we cannot use it to create action
29
Q

how can the gap between the “is” and “ought” be bridged?
what is the drawback of this?

A
  • hypothetical “if clause” inbetween descriptive + prescriptive statements
    ** there is a high crime rate in london. if you do not want a high crime rate in london, you ought to reduce it**
  • gap is bridged but makes our moral judgemtns hypothetical
  • so if we didnt agree, we can opt out making morality subjective and humes 3 arguemtns against moral realism to be convincing
30
Q

what is the verification principle

A
  • language is meanignful iff (and only if)
    1) it is logically verifiable —> analytically true
    2) it is empirically verifiable —> can be demonstrated through experience
  • strong verification = can demonstrate it
  • weak verification = we know what is required to verify it even if we cannot now
31
Q

give some examples of verifiable and non verifiable statements

A

V = a triangle has 3 sides, the sky is blue
NV = any moral, religious or metaphysical statements such as lying is wrong, God exists, the realm of forums exists

32
Q

what is the objection to ayers verification principle

A
  • self refuting —> fails to pass its own criteria
  • the statement “language is only meaningful if it is either logically or empirically verifiable” is not logically or empirically verifiable
33
Q

what does moral relativism mean - two types - descriptive and prescriptive

A
  • descriptive = there are different claims about what is good or bad —> if there are moral facts then they should be universal
  • prescriptive = all those different claims about what is good or bad are equally correct
34
Q

what is evidence for moral relativism

A
  • there are considerable differences between cultures on a variety of issues
    —> honour killings, body mutilations can be justified
35
Q

what is evidence against moral relativism

A
  • most cultures agree on fundamental moral claims
    —> murder, lying, stealing = bad
    —> respect + kindness = good
36
Q

what example does Mackie give to support his claim that there is more disagreement than agreement on moral truths

A
  • example of a monogamous relationship
    —> people are more likely to thing this is a good thing because of our cultural history
  • polygamy is wrong in our context but good or normal in other contexts
  • alternative = monogamy is objectively good and other cultures aren’t as good at figuring this out
37
Q

what is an inductive argument

A
  • reasons from particular premises
  • often a-prosteriori
    —> relies on strong or weak evidence
38
Q

what is an abductive argument

A
  • a form of an inductive argument
  • rather than building a case through evidence, they take the evidence and consider the best possible options in explaining it
  • IR - Russels best hypothesis argument against the existence of the external world
39
Q

outline Jackie’s full argument from relativity

A

P1) it is a fact that there is moral disagreement/variation between cultures
P2) there’s 2 possible options for this: 1) there are mind independent moral truths and some cultures are better at perceiving them 2) moral values reflect cultures and their history
P3) option two is simple and better supported by evidence and is more likely
C1) Therefore, it is unlikely that there exists mind independent moral truths and moral realism is likely to be false

40
Q

how might a moral realist object to Mackie’s full argument from relativity

A
41
Q

what is metaphysical queerness for Mackie

A
  • relies on Humes —> reasons and facts do not motivate us
  • so if there were more moral facts they would motivate us but they would be different to all other facts we know
  • so it is implausible that such things, which are so anomalous, really exist
42
Q

what is epistemological queerness for Mackie

A
  • given that moral facts would be so unlike all other facts, the way we know them would also be unlikely the ways that we know all other facts
  • appealing to some kind of mysterious moral intuition is not good enough
  • so it is implausible that this faculty exists
43
Q

outline Mackies argument from queerness

A

P1) Moral realism claims that moral facts exist MID
P2) Facts don’t motivate us to act, but moral facts would
P3) Since facts do not motivate us, a moral fact would be strange, completely unlike anything else that we understand to exist in the world (metaphysical queerness)
P4) Since facts are known using natural senses, to know about moral facts which motivate us would require a strange moral perception, utterly different to our other sense
C1) therefore, it is unlikely that moral facts do not exist and so moral realism is false

44
Q

how could a moral realist respond to Mackie’s argument from queerness and Mackie’s rebuttal back

A
  • we do not know enough about the world yet so with time we will understand the place of non-natural properties in relation to natural ones
  • also other kinds of knowledge are also strange –> we do not see causation but infer it
  • BUT MACKIES RESPONSE —> none of these motivate us the way moral facts do

paper 1 moral content (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions