Meta ethics

Question 1

What is meta ethics?

Answer 1

It analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral term such as ‘good’ and ‘right’.

Question 2

What are the two main forms of meta ethics?

Answer 2

1. Cognitivism- moral truths exist independently of the mind, they can be true/false and terms such as ‘right’ correspond to facts in the world. 2. Non-cognitivism- there is no such thing as a moral truth, moral facts are subjective emotional responses.

Question 3

Explain the fact-value distinction

Answer 3

A fact is a statement which can be true/false ‘there are two people in the room.’ A value is a belief, judgment or attitude ‘killing is always wrong.’

Question 4

What is the difference between realism and anti realism?

Answer 4

1. Cognitivists are moral realists, this holds that certain actions are right/wrong and moral judgments can be objective moral facts. 2. Non-cognitivists are moral anti-realists, moral facts don’t exist and are subjective.

Question 5

Describe Hume’s is-ought gap

Answer 5

Deriving what ought to be done from what is the case is an example of false deduction.

Question 6

What is the non-cognitivist position on the is-ought gap?

Answer 6

We can’t reason from a statement of fact to one of value. Values aren’t in the world, they are just emotional responses to the world.

Question 7

Describe the cognitivist position on the is-ought gap

Answer 7

Morality is attached to certain facts that all people share. We can discover it through reason and experience. This idea can justify moral progress and moral truth.

Question 8

What is naturalism?

Answer 8

It is cognitive and realist, it argues that there are moral principles in the world. Terms such as ‘good’ can be understood in natural terms.

Question 9

What do naturalists think about the Good?

Answer 9

It is a natural property of the world and we can infer from this property what the Good actually is.

Question 10

What is Mill’s argument that the utilitarian understanding of human nature is the origin of morality?

Answer 10

P1. The aim of our desires is happiness. P2. Things are desirable as people desire them in the same way that sounds are audible insofar as people hear them. P3. Personal happiness is a good to each person. P4. As society is the sum of individual interests, general happiness is a good for this sum of interests. P5. Ergo, the Good is happiness.

Question 11

How does Mill see the Good?

Answer 11

When he refers to it, he is referring to morality as a whole, the Good is not transcendent, it is something derived from out very nature as animals.

Question 12

Give two strengths of ethical naturalism based on moral feelings and moral disagreements

Answer 12

1. It accounts for moral feelings when we feel outraged by an injustice- it gives us pain, which makes us unhappy and naturally leads to the fact that it’s morally wrong. 2. It accounts for moral disagreements, if we think of the consequences of our actions in terms of pleasure/pain, we can decide what is morally right.

Question 13

Give two more strengths of ethical naturalism based on moral language and how people understand morality

Answer 13

1. It explains how we use moral language, when we make moral judgments, we state them as facts and imply that they represent something about the nature of reality. 2. We all value pleasure over pain, so it makes sense that the Good is pleasure.

Question 14

What is the problem with ethical naturalism?

Answer 14

It commits reductionism as it reduces moral judgments to natural facts about the world. It also fails to distinguish between facts and values and implies that an ought can be derived from an is.

Question 15

How does G.E. Moore criticize the naturalist position?

Answer 15

He takes a cognitivist position, but argues that morality can’t be reduced to a natural property of the world. He criticizes the naturalist position because it defines the Good as a natural property and holds that you can infer what is moral from such premises.

Question 16

What is Moore’s open question argument?

Answer 16

If the Good was pleasure, then the answer to ‘is the Good pleasure?’ Would be so obvious that it would simply require a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it would be a closed question. The issue is that this is not the case. Therefor, the Good is not pleasure.

Question 17

Explain the difference between an open question and a closed question

Answer 17

A closed question is one which can be answered with a simple yes or no, or from an answer derived from a limited number of possibilities. An open question can have any number of answers.

Question 18

What is Moore’s naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 18

Any attempt to define goodness leads to the naturalistic fallacy, when a non natural object is given natural properties.

Question 19

Explain the naturalistic fallacy

Answer 19

A non natural object is given natural properties like shape/color/pleasure. When people associate the Good with natural terms they reduce this key moral term to natural properties. Self interest and pleasure are not moral terms and it is a mistake for morality to be reduced to them.

Question 20

What position does Moore take?

Answer 20

We know what is good through intuition, we just know what the Good is in the same way that we couldn’t describe yellow without pointing to a yellow object.

Question 21

Why is Moore’s position cognitivist?

Answer 21

For him moral principles exist and are real, even though they are not natural properties.

Question 22

Give two issues with Moore’s argument

Answer 22

1. It is a circular argument, if good is an intuition and intuitions are moral then the good is moral, the good is the good. 2. What are intuitions and what happens if they conflict?

Question 23

What is the verification principle?

Answer 23

A proposition is only meaningful if it is true by definition or is empirically verifiable

Question 24

What are moral values for mackie?

Answer 24

They are relative, as opposed to being absolute and are not part of the fabric of the world.

Question 25

What three points does Mackie give to prove that moral values are not part of the fabric of the world?

Answer 25

1. There is a difference between kind and cruel actions. 2. We can describe such acts and their differences, so they are part of the fabric of the world. 3. But the values we ascribe to them are not part of this, we can decide an act of cruelty, but the value that this act is wrong is not part of the world.

Question 26

How is mackie critical of moral realism?

Answer 26

Moral properties cannot be absolute as they vary form culture to culture, from society to society and from individual to individual.

Question 27

What is Ayer’s position on ethical language?

Answer 27

There is nothing factual about ethical language, it is symbolic, just like religious language.

Question 28

What are ethical assertions for Ayer?

Answer 28

Expressions of personal feelings and emotions. They do not correspond to any physical properties and are neither true nor false.

Question 29

What is the non-cognitivist/emotivist position on morality?

Answer 29

Rightness/wrongness are emotional add one that do not effect the factual claim. We can never morally disagree in the way we disagree about facts.

Question 30

What is the issue with emotivism not distinguishing between moral and non moral judgments?

Answer 30

It doesn’t clearly distinguish between them- ‘giving to charity it good’ and ‘the book is good’ are seen as the same. But moral judgments can’t be reduced to subjective feelings and emotions.

Question 31

What is a moral judgment for Ayer?

Answer 31

Moral judgments can be detached from the facts of the matter, so are meaningless.

Question 32

What is the main problem with Ayer’s emotivism?

Answer 32

We can’t detached facts from moral considerations and even if moral judgments can be detached from facts, this does not mean they are meaningless.

Question 33

What is logical positivism?

Answer 33

Language is meaningless unless it can be verified empirically through sense experience.

Question 34

Give two issues with emotivism

Answer 34

1. Emotivism relies heavily on the fact value distinction, if this is wrong then the theory collapses. 2. When we make a moral judgment, we don’t necessarily try to influence others.

Question 35

Give two more problems with emotivism

Answer 35

1. Does not account for the specificity of moral language, moral statements are not like other statements. 2. Does not account for moral uncertainty and does not allow for moral progress.

Question 36

What does brand Blanshard say is the problem with emotivism?

Answer 36

If morality is just expressing emotions when witnessing an event then a rabbit dying in pain is neither good nor bad if no one observes it.

Question 37

What is Hare’s position?

Answer 37

There are no such things as moral facts but moral statements work to prescribe what to do.

Question 38

What does Hare’s prescriptivism argue?

Answer 38

Moral judgments prescribe what to do. Moral terms are evaluative, they approve of or disapprove of experiences. Moral judgments are meaningful when they can apply to everyone in a similar situation.

Question 39

How does Hare define Good?

Answer 39

Saying something is good means I choose the thing and recommend it to others, goodness is not a property, but is evaluative insofar as it puts a value on an object. The commendation of the thing is intended to be action guiding, it tells us what we ought to do and bridges the gap between value and fact.

Question 40

How are moral judgments meaningful for Hare?

Answer 40

Moral judgments are meaningful when they can apply to everyone in a similar situation.

Question 41

What does Hare say about universalizability?

Answer 41

When we say ‘ought’ we are saying that an action is right for all in particular circumstances and the line of action in similar circumstances should be the same.

Question 42

What does Hare say about moral and non moral judgments?

Answer 42

Moral judgments override non moral ones. If I think stealing is wrong, I wouldn’t steal even if I needed to .

Question 43

Explain the problem with prescriptivism based on a clash of moral principles

Answer 43

It doesn’t account for them, what if you think abortion is wrong and life must be preserved at all costs, but what if the mother’s life is at risk unless the fetus is terminated? Hare says that in this case one moral principle must be abandoned.

Question 44

Explain the issue with universalizability

Answer 44

Circumstances are never completely the same and each situation is unique.

Question 45

Give two more issues with prescriptivism

Answer 45

1. Hare doesn’t account for rational ‘bad decisions such as killing a fly because it’s annoying. 2. Hare says that moral considerations override all other considerations, but how can we make that decision if we can’t differentiate between moral and non moral uses of the term should?