Meta-ethics

Question 1

Meta-ethics

Answer 1

the branch of ethics that examines what moral language is about and how it can be justified

it considers second-order questions about the nature and purpose of morality e.g. what is the meaning of ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’?

Question 2

Second-order questions

Answer 2

meta-ethical questions about the nature and purpose of morality

Question 3

Ethical naturalism

Answer 3

the meta-ethical view that morality is defined by facts about nature or human nature

• moral values are an objective part of the universe
• there are ethical facts about the world, because otherwise we have no real justification for our actions
• a cognitive theory

Question 4

Ethical non-naturalism

Answer 4

the meta-ethical view that moral knowledge is a factual property known by intuition or by God’s commands

• a cognitive theory

Question 5

Cognitivism

Answer 5

the view that significant language is truth-apt (capable of being true or false). Meaning is a matter of empirical fact or relation of ideas

Question 6

Non-cognitivism

Answer 6

the view that some meaningful language is not truth-apt (not capable of being true or false). Meaning is sometimes a matter of empirical fact or relation of ideas but may also be more connected to use.

Question 7

Divine Command Theory (in a nutshell)

Answer 7

• whatever God commands must be good because God is the source of all goodness
• what God forbids must be evil
• people should act in a way that reflects the will of God for them, as they best understand it

Question 8

Christian Divine Command Theory

Answer 8

in Protestant Christianity:
- God is the Creator of everything
- humans are created in God’s image
- therefore, human moral behaviour should literally follow God’s commands
- for those who live by Sola Scriptura, God’s commands are seen in scripture
- DCT is based on both God’s moral character and God’s moral commands e.g. Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount

Question 9

DCT - John Calvin (Protestantism)

Answer 9

• John Calvin uses DCT to justify predestination
• because 1) God is omniscient and 2) everything he commands is good, he knows who the elect and the reprobates are, and their salvation/damnation is just
• the DCT is a natural result of the absolute power and sovereignty of God

Question 10

DCT - Karl Barth (Protestantism)

Answer 10

• the commands of God set Christian ethics apart from general discussions about morality, and totally override fallible human debate on moral issues
• ‘the question of good and evil has been decided and settled once and for all in the decree of God’

Question 11

Catholic views on divine command

Answer 11

• Christ gave the leaders of his Church, e.g. the Pope, the authority to make pronouncements on matters of doctrine and ethics
• the Pope is still a fallible human being, but special pronouncements made on the basis of his authority are infallible
• these special pronouncements represent the will of Christ

Question 12

DCT strengths

Answer 12

• for religious people, DCT grounds their moral behaviour in the teachings of a factually-existing God
• rules are universal
• system is clear and straightforward
• there is an end goal to morality (life after death)
• God is a fair judge, as he does not have any of the weaknesses of human judges

Question 13

DCT weaknesses

Answer 13

• we cannot tell that moral commands in the Bible are as God gave them (no original OT, NT lost in translation)
• the Bible contains immoral commands e.g. the condonation of slavery, execution of homosexuals
• no autonomy as DCT does not offer a free choice, and many think true morality comes from the ability to freely choose
• the Euthyphro Dilemma

Question 14

The Euthyphro Dilemma

Answer 14

‘Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?’

• acceptance of first option -> God loses moral goodness (if everything god commands is right then moral goodness has no meaning)
• acceptance of second option -> God loses omnipotence

Question 15

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Answer 15

• pain and pleasure are the ‘two sovereign masters’ of humanity determining all we do and what we ought to do
• pleasure/happiness is the one intrinsic good
• pain/unhappiness is the one intrinsic evil
• we should seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
• all pleasures are equal

Question 16

Mill’s Utilitarianism

Answer 16

• there are higher cultural and intellectual pleasures that are superior to lower physical ones
• the good is dependent on quality of life instead of the quantity of pleasure
• it is important to take into account the positive benefits offered by general moral rules/principles that produce a balance of pleasure over pain
• these rules can be broken when immediate consequences are harmful

Question 17

Strengths of ethical naturalism

Answer 17

• ethical propositions are true because they are factual - factors e.g. happiness, love, wellbeing are grounded in nature/human nature
• right and wrong are objective, as they exist in the world outside ourselves
• ethical propositions can give us solid guidelines and rules to follow
• we can be judged by our compliance with the rules
• most people tend to follow a naturalist theory

Question 18

Naturalistic fallacy

Answer 18

G.E. Moore’s argument that it is a fallacy when people reason from facts to moral claims i.e. defining good in terms of natural properties like pleasure, survival and happiness

Question 19

Weaknesses of ethical naturalism

Answer 19

1. ethical non-cognitivists argue that moral principles are not factual
2. the naturalistic fallacy
   - it is a mistake to try and define the concept of ‘good’ in terms of some natural property, such as ‘pleasant’ or ‘desirable’
   - it is not possible to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ - we cannot go from
   pleasure is good’ to ‘we ought to seek pleasure’.
3. Moore argued that good is undefinable (the Open Question argument)
   - ‘This action maximises utility, but is it good?’ would be a closed question for utilitarians, as they have to say yes (bad)
   - however, there is nothing illogical about asking ‘is it good to bring about more pleasure than pain’?
   - the OQA shows that moral terms like “good” cannot be reduced to natural properties, because it is always meaningful to ask whether a natural property is in fact good

Question 20

Strengths of utilitarianism

Answer 20

• it gives a factual basis for morality
• the presence of guidelines + rules (e.g. Bentham’s Pleasure Calculus)
• it gives us a way of measuring the moral worth of people
• utilitarianism is a practical system, and UK politics is broadly utilitarian
• most people want happiness

Question 21

Weaknesses of utilitarianism

Answer 21

• happiness is subjective and impossible to define
• we can never be sure of the consequences of our actions
• the principle of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ ignores the rights of the minority
• it commits the naturalistic fallacy

Question 22

Intuitionism

Answer 22

a form of non-naturalism

the meta-ethical view that moral knowledge is a factual property known by intuition
- intuitions are not supported by inference from other beliefs, so moral judgements are self-evident to those who hold them
- a form of moral realism: moral truths exist independently of persons

Question 23

Intuitionism - W.D. Ross

Answer 23

there are prima facie duties we must instinctively do

1. keep our promises
2. pay back the harm we do to others
3. not injure others
4. return favours and services given to us by others
5. not harm innocent people
6. look after parents

provided there is mental maturity, if there are conflicting duties, intuition will tell one what to do

Question 24

Strengths of intuitionism

Answer 24

• everyone has moral intuitions, and tends to use them to underpin or check moral arguments
• it overcomes the problem that there seems to be no agreement as to what the ‘facts’ of ethics are
• unlike non-cognitivism, intuitionism preserves the idea that moral reasoning aims at truth, not merely emotional expression

Question 25

Weaknesses of intuitionism

Answer 25

- does not answer the question of how we have intuitions about right or wrong - makes ethical discussion difficult, as there is no fundamental, reasoned basis upon which to argue - it is easy to be unconsciously influenced by prevailing social norms (e.g. we might intuit that slavery is right had we lived in the 18th century) - may lead people to turn to ethical non-cognitivism (subjective)

Question 26

How the is-ought gap can be filled according to neo-naturalism

Answer 26

- the content of morality is the flourishing of human beings application of this to an example: - she is old and lonely - you ought to help her - not helping her does not contribute to the flourishing of human beings - therefore you ought to help her

Question 27

emotivism

Answer 27

- the view that ethical statements serve to express the speaker’s emotions or attitudes and seek to influence others - non-cognitive as it functions to express approval or disapproval instead of objective truths

Question 28

prescriptivism

Answer 28

- the view that ethical statements do not describe facts but function as universal prescriptions or commands about how one ought to act - moral language is non-cognitive and action-guiding