Meta ethics

Question 1

What is meta ethics?

Answer 1

It analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral terms 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 things in the world. 2. Non cognitivism- there is no such thing as a moral truths, moral facts are subjective emotional responses.

Question 3

Explain the fact value distinction

Answer 3

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

Question 4

What is the difference between realism and anti realism

Answer 4

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

Question 5

What is 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 do non cognitivists think of the is/ought gap?

Answer 6

You can’t reason from a statement of fact to a statement of value, values aren’t in the world, they are emotional responses to the world.

Question 7

What do cognitivists think of the is ought gap?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

What is naturalism?

Answer 8

Cognitivist and realist, there are moral principles in the world and 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 human morality?

Answer 10

P1. The aim of our desires is happiness. P2. Things are desirable as people desire them insofar as sounds are audible as people hear them. P3. Personal happiness is a good to each person. P4. As society is a sum of individual interests, general happiness is a good for this sum of interests. C. 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 but is derived from our very nature as animals.

Question 12

Give two strengths of ethical naturalism

Answer 12

1. Accounts for moral feelings- when we feel outraged, we feel pain, this makes us unhappy and leads to the fact that it is morally wrong. 2. It accounts for moral disagreements, if we think of the consequences of our actions in terms of pleasure/pain we can work out what is morally right.

Question 13

Give two more strengths of ethical naturalism

Answer 13

3. 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. 4. 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

Commits reductionism- reduces moral judgments to natural facts about the world. 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 naturalism?

Answer 15

Takes a cognitivist position, but argues that morality can’t be reduced to a natural property of the world. Naturalism 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, it would be a closed question. This is not the case, so the good is not pleasure.

Question 17

What is the difference between an open and a closed question?

Answer 17

Open question- can have any number of answers. Closed question- can be answered with a yes/no or from a limited number of answers.

Question 18

What is Moore’s naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 18

Attempts to define goodness lead to a naturalistic fallacy wherein 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 good/color/pleasure. When you associate the good with natural terms you reduce a 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

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. Circular- if good is an intuition and intuitions are moral then the good is moral, so 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 empirically verifiable.

Question 24

How does Mackie see moral values?

Answer 24

They are relative and are not part of the fabric of the world.

Question 25

How does Mackie 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, they are part of the fabric of the world. 3. The values we ascribe to them are not part of the fabric of the world, we can say that an act is cruel, but the idea that it is bad is not part of the fabric of the world.

Question 26

How does Mackie criticize moral realism

Answer 26

Moreal properties can’t be absolute as they vary from culture to culture, society to society and individual to individual.

Question 27

How does Ayer see ethical language?

Answer 27

It is not factual, but symbolic like religious language.

Question 28

How does Ayer see ethical assertions?

Answer 28

They are expressions of personal feelings/emotions and do not correspond to any physical properties, they are neither true nor false.

Question 29

How do non cognitivists/emotivists see morality?

Answer 29

Right/wrong are emotional add ons and don’t effect factual claims. 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

‘Giving to charity is good’ becomes the same as ‘chocolate is good’, moral judgments can’t simply be reduced to subjective feelings and emotions.

Question 31

How does Ayer see moral judgments?

Answer 31

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

Question 32

What is the main issue with emotivism?

Answer 32

We can’t detach facts from moral considerations, even if we could, this wouldn’t make moral judgments 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. It relies heavily on the fact value distinction. 2. When we make moral judgments, we don’t always try to influence others.

Question 35

Give two more issues with emotivism

Answer 35

3. Does not account for the specificity of moral language, moral statements are not like other statements. 4. Does not account for moral uncertainty or allow for moral progress.

Question 36

What is Brand Blanshard’s 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, moral judgments work to prescribe what to do.

Question 38

What does prescriptivism argue?

Answer 38

Moral judgments prescribe what to do, they are evaluative and approve/disapprove of experiences, moral judgements are meaningful when they can apply to all in a similar situation.

Question 39

How does Hare define the good?

Answer 39

Calling something good means you choose is and recommend it. Goodness is not a property, but is evaluative insofar as it puts value on an object. Commending something is 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

Only 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 should be the same.

Question 42

What does hare say about moral and non moral judgments?

Answer 42

Moral judgments override non moral judgments, if I thought stealing was wrong, I wouldn’t steal even if I needed to.

Question 43

What is the problem with prescriptivism?

Answer 43

It doesn’t account for a clash of moral principles- if life should be preserved at all costs, then abortion is wrong, but what would you do in a situation where the mother would die if she carried the baby? Hare says one principle must be abandoned.

Question 44

What is the problem with universalizability?

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Give two more issues with prescriptivism

Answer 45

1. Doesn’t account for rational but bad decisions such as killing a fly becseu it’s annoying. 2. Moral considerations are said to override all other considerations, but how can we make that distinction if we can’t differentiate between moral and non moral uses of the term should?