Meta ethics

Question 1

What is a cognitive statement?

Answer 1

Moral language can be shown to be true or false.

Question 2

What is a non-cognitive statement?

Answer 2

Moral statements cannot be shown to be true or false.

Question 3

What is a realist?

Answer 3

Argues that moral truths actually exist and are real features in the world.

Question 4

What is an anti-realist?

Answer 4

Claim that there are no real truths in the world.

Question 5

What is naturalism?

Answer 5

Moral truths can be observed and discovered empirically.

Realist and cognitive.

Question 6

What is intuitionism?

Answer 6

Moral truths do exist but cannot be seen in the same way as other truths.

We just know about them through intuition.

Realist and cognitive.

Question 7

What is emotivism?

Answer 7

Moral truths do not exist.

When we make a moral statement we are simply expressing our opinions and feelings.

Anti-realist and non-cognitive.

Question 8

What two claims do ethical naturalists make?

Answer 8

Moral judgments can be true and false and make knowledge claims.

Moral facts are identifiable with natural properties in the world.

Question 9

Which two ethical theories are ethically naturalist and why?

Answer 9

Natural law - the eternal law is seen in nature, concluded through the primary precepts.

Utilitarianism - ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure…’

Question 10

What does F.H Bradley argue?

Answer 10

Naturalist

We can observe what is good from one’s position in society, analyzing our functions and fulfilling our duties.

Our practical reasoning finds satisfaction in developing a mature self that lives up to these ideals.

‘…our function as an organ in the social organism’

Question 11

What does Phillipa Foot argue?

Answer 11

Naturalist

There are virtues, characteristics or behaviors that aim at some good.

We can observe these virtues by looking at the way in which someone acts, for example, a person who values honesty will act in an honest way.

Question 12

What is Phillipa Foot’s argument about the oak tree?

Answer 12

An oak tree is good so far as it has the traits to allow it is flourish, this also applies to humans.

There is a factual, natural difference between a plant that is flourishing and a plant that is not. The same is true for humans.

Links the natural world to human morality - good can be observed by looking at whether something can flourish.

Question 13

Why does J.L Mackie feel that moral truths are not always absolute?

Answer 13

Our society has placed rules upon us.

Society has therefore accepted what is right and wrong - not necessarily because something makes it or that it is intrinsically right or wrong.

It is relative because these notions change overtime.

Question 14

What is G.E Moore’s objection to naturalism?

Answer 14

Moral terms are simple concepts.

The identification of the moral with the natural fails the open question argument (equating of the property of goodness with some non-moral property - which keeps moral questions genuinely open for debate).

For example, there is no clear answer as to whether keeping promises is good.

Question 15

What is the naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 15

The mistake of attempting to reduce the moral property to the natural property.

Question 16

Quote on F.H Bradley’s view on naturalism?

Answer 16

‘Good, like truth and beauty, is concrete. It is not an abstraction, or a rootless generality’.

Question 17

Quote for G.E Moore’s rejection of naturalism?

Answer 17

‘Naturalistic ethics is entirely unconvincing and should be given up’.

Question 18

Quote for Hume’s ‘Is/Ought’ theory?

Answer 18

‘You can’t get an ought from an is’.

Question 19

Who says that ‘reason is the slave of the passions’?

Answer 19

Hume.

Question 20

According to Moore, when can we define something?

Answer 20

When it leaves us with no questions.

Definitions are only possible when the notion is something complex.

Question 21

What did Moore believe that we could not define?

Answer 21

Simple objects.

For example, good, as we intuitively know what it is - it cannot be defined as we would always ask questions.

Question 22

What does Moore say in Principia Ethics to show we cannot define simple things?

Answer 22

‘everything is what it is and not another thing’

Question 23

Why did Moore reject utilitarian’s?

Answer 23

Utilitarian’s often argued that good could be defined, measured, quantified and qualified.

Question 24

What are H.A Pritchard’s beliefs on intuitionalism?

Answer 24

He separates ‘good’ and ‘duty’.

Reason collects the facts whereas intuition determines the course to follow.

Intuitions are not merely subjective opinions bit rather direct knowledge by rational insight.

Question 25

Why is H.A Pritchard successful in what he is says about reason and intuition?

Answer 25

This explains why different people have different levels of moral intuition, hence why we make different decisions.

Question 26

What are W.D Ross's beliefs on intuitionism?

Answer 26

Principles sometimes conflict meaning there cannot be moral absolutes. Our intuition identifies our prima facie duties (duties based on our first impressions - eg. avoiding harm) - these duties can conflict but we can intuit different moral obligations.

Question 27

Why is Ross's approach to intuitionism successful?

Answer 27

Ross solves the problems identified with Kant's ethic whereby duties can sometimes conflict. For example, the axe murderer example, Ross would acknowledge that the friend would not tell the murderer where the other friend is.

Question 28

What is Daniel Kahneman's criticism of intuitionism?

Answer 28

A gap exists between our intuition and our rational judgements. Out intuitions are automatic, quick and emotionally charged whereas our reason is slow and conscious. Intuitions may be mistaken, they are inconsistent and incoherent.

Question 29

What is Hume's fork analogy?

Answer 29

Statements are either synthetic or analytic. Synthetic = need to be proven with experience. Analytic = true by definition.

Question 30

What did Ayre believe about moral statements?

Answer 30

Moral statements are neither analytic or synthetic hence they are meaningless. For example, 'good' is neither true by definition or can be empirically verified. Ethical language is not analytic or verifiable.

Question 31

What does Ayre believe about emotivism?

Answer 31

Ethical symbols, e.g 'good', are simply the person displaying emotion about a fact rather than it portraying any real meaning. 'I am simply evincing my moral disapproval' (Ayre, Truth and logic).

Question 32

What does C.L Stevenson mean by dynamic statements?

Answer 32

He believed ethical language is dynamic, meaning it’s used not just to express emotion, but to influence and persuade others.

Question 33

What does C.L Stevenson believe about moral statements?

Answer 33

He develops Ayre's thinking. He argues when making moral statements, we are attempting to influence other people's behavior and attitudes, rather than simply expressing emotion. Our moral attitudes are based on beliefs held within a social context. We can never fully separate our emotive responses so we can never be fully rational (our emotive responses will always try to influence others).

Question 34

How does Phillipa Foot reject emotivism?

Answer 34

She claims that some thing ARE wrong, this is more than just an expression of how a person feels. For example, this can be applied to the discussion of concentration camps.

Question 35

What are strengths of emotivism?

Answer 35

Avoids the naturalistic fallacy. Once you accept the face value distinction (Just because something is, doesn't mean it is good), it provides a clear account of moral motivation. It accounts for why moral disputes and complex and ongoing.

Question 36

What are weaknesses of emotivism?

Answer 36

It is too quick to give upon moral reasoning. It leads to ethical egoism ( what you think is right). Ethical debates and rendered meaningless (Boo-hurrah). It is an incomplete picture of what moral language is aiming to do. Some moral debates cannot be reduced down to just feelings.

Question 37

How does Phillipa Foot link to Aristotelian theology?

Answer 37

Aristotle claims that goodness = eudaimonia (flourishing). Flourishing is a factual feature of natural organisms. Foot defends this view in an example of an oak tree.

Question 38

What is Hume's criticism of naturalism?

Answer 38

Just because we naturally find something good doesn’t mean it is good. This leap from “is” to “ought” is unjustified.

Question 39

What would Foot and Anscombe's criticism of Hume be?

Answer 39

Ansecombe argues that ‘ought’ functions like ‘need’. Foot illustrated with a plant needing certain things to flourish and argued humans and their needs are no different.

Question 40

What would Mackie's criticism be of Moore and moral intuitionism and how may intuitionalists counteract this?

Answer 40

Cross-cultural moral disagreement suggests that moral intuitions reflect social conditioning, not objective truths. Intuitionists argue one party in a moral disagreement could be mistaken due to misunderstanding.

Question 41

How may someone criticise emotivism by using the verification principle?

Answer 41

Some criticise emotivism by criticising the verification principle - it cannot itself be verified.

Question 42

How can Hume's motivation argument be used to criticise emotivism?

Answer 42

It states: Only desires are motivating, not beliefs. Ethical language involves motivation So, ethical language expresses non-cognitive desires

Question 43

What is moral nihilism and why is it problematic?

Answer 43

Claims morality is pointless. This is problematic because nihilism might cause people to stop following morality or law. This could end society or justify atrocity.

Question 44

How does Phillipa Foot challenge Hume?

Answer 44

She claims moral evil is a 'kind of natural defect'.