Meta-ethics

Question 1

cognitivism

Answer 1

view that ethical language can be true or false

Question 2

Non-cognitivism

Answer 2

view that ethical laguage can’t be true or false

Question 3

Ethical Naturalism

Answer 3

ethical facts are reducible to natural facts
(cognitivist)

Question 4

Moral realism

Answer 4

view that moral properties exist in reality

Question 5

moral anti-realism

Answer 5

view that moral properties don’t exist ii reality

Question 6

Utilitarianist naturalism

Answer 6

-Bentham claims that goodness = pleasure.
-human nature to find pleasure good
-pleasure is a natural property
“Nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”

supported by Mill
->happiness is our sole ultimate desire, which is the ‘only proof’ that happiness is good.

Question 7

Aristotelian naturalism

Answer 7

Aristotle, through his function argument, suggests since it can be observed that all things in the universe have a “function” which is “good”, humans must also have a good function which he claims to be eudaimonia

Question 8

Hume’s criticism

Answer 8

Hume- is-ought gap-> moral inferences normally made from facts are invalid because they make assumptions rather than justified deductions
We cannot suggest something is ‘good’ and we ought to do it because of an observable fact.

For example, it would be incorrect to assume that ‘donating to charity is morally good’ because of the fact ‘people feel pleasure when they donate to charity’ as the pleasure people receive from donating may not be ‘good’.

Question 8

Moore’s argument

Answer 8

Moore’s naturalistic fallacy which proposes that it is a fallacy to assume that something being natural means that it is good as there is no valid way of knowing this

Moore’s open-question argument
Aims to show good is a simple, unanalysable quality
Using utilitarianism if the definition is good means achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of ppl Moore asks Is whatever leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number good? Since the question is meaningful the definition cannot be correct

If ethical naturalism was true it wouldn’t make sense to ask an open question

(non-naturalist)

Question 9

Moore’s argument (2)

Answer 9

Through intuitionism, Moore argues that ethical terms can be objective through our prior knowledge. This is because when we observe or reflect on a moral action and its consequences, we intuitively know whether it was right or wrong.
-> see in society through creation of laws which prohibit acts like stealing and murder

Prichard adds to moore’s arguement by introducing general thinking (thinking which clarifies moral concepts) and moral thinking- reveals what we ought to do-> rationality alone cannot be used to create a moral standard as we intuitively know what is right and wrong

ev- Hare- ‘we should be able to say the reasons behind our moral beliefs’ therefore intuitionism cannot be supported through rationality as our morals created by our intuition are based on emotions.

(Non-cognitivist?)

Question 9

Criticism of Moore

Answer 9

Mackie argument from relativity
-we have have no reason to think there is a non-natural moral property influences our moral views, esp when there r better explanation for our moral views of social conditioning such as relativism

ev-could explain the moral agreement through evolution and the universal practical requirements for a society to exist.

He is a moral anti-realist is not arguing abt natualism

Question 9

hume’s argument (2)

Answer 9

theory of motivation-> aims to show moral judgements can’t be caused by reason

reason is “the slave of the passions”. Reason can only create beliefs about how to satisfy/achieve our desired ends.

desire is the foundational motivator of moral judgements, not reason. Ethical language thus expresses non-cognitive desires.

Counter for intuitionism

Question 10

Haidt criticism of Hume

Answer 10

argues Hume goes to far with callig reason a ‘slave’.
compares emotions to elephant a d reason to a rider-> rider can control the general direction of the rider of the elephant like human’s reason can control their general behaviour despite their emotions

cognitive

Question 11

Ayer argument

Answer 11

Through emotivism, Ayer argues that moral judgements come from our feelings rather than reason, so when we use ethical terms to describe something, we are simply expressing non-cognitions (such as disapproval). He illustrates this with the boo/hurrah theory: saying ‘X is wrong’ is equivalent to saying ‘boo to X,’ and ‘X is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘hurrah to X.’ This means ethical language expresses emotions and cannot be true or false. This aligns with human psychology as moral debates seem like emotional conflict which is why moral debates are often described as ‘heated’.

Question 12

Hume’s arguement

Answer 12

• Hume’s fork aims to show that moral judgements cannot be judgements of reason
  -> claims that there are two types of judgements of reason:

Synthetic judgements, only known a posteriori.
Analytic judgements, only known a priori.

Ayer’s verification principle expanded this to become the criteria of meaningful cognitive language. A statement is only meaningful if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable through experience.

• ethical statements are not analytic as they can be denied without contradiction.
  -> e.g. If I deny that ‘stealing is wrong’, there is no apparent contradiction. The concept of ‘stealing’ does not seem contradicted by ‘not wrong’.

’ Ethical statements are not synthetic nor empirically verifiable. Moral properties like ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ do not exist in experience as they are not observable.

-> moral judgements are neither analytic nor synthetic (Hume), nor empirically verifiable (Ayer).

Question 13

Philippa Foot argument

Answer 13

supported aristotelian virute ethics through belief in objective morality

believe humans have natural normativity- living beings should be evaluated based on how well they perform their functions and for humans this rationaliy, social cooperation and moral reasoning

Argues moral judgements are types of natural evaluations similar to saying a plant is healthy

Moral defects are natural defects-> if a person is morally ignorant they have a natural defect in their social and moral functioning

cognitive

Question 14

Hare’s argument

Answer 14

moral statements are like universal recommendations as they are non-cognitive and cannot be true or false. For example, ‘stealing is wrong’ means ‘don’t steal’ which isn’t an objective fact but prescribing a universal rule

non-cognitive

Question 15

Kant’s argument

Answer 15

• ethical terms are grounded in rationality through the use of his categorical imperative.
• By asking whether a maxim could be willed as a universal law, the categorical imperative provides a rational method for making ethical terms truth-apt.
• This is because the moral standard is universal, morality becomes objectively true or false

cognitive

Question 16

Cultural Relativism

Answer 16

some action tht are seen as bad by other countries are seen as good by others
e.g. polygamy- from a western standpoint is seen as wrong but many west african societies see it as good- status symbol

Question 17

Golden nugget

Answer 17

‘The limits of my language are the limits of my world’ – Wittgenstein