What is meta-ethics?
Meta-ethics goes beyond normative theories and examines what moral language is about and how it can be justified. It asks questions about the nature and purpose of morality
What are the two main branches of meta-ethics?
- Cognitivism: there are objective moral facts which exist independently of our subjective thoughts and feelings
- Non-cognitivism: there are no objective moral facts - our moral ideas and claims are nothing more than wishes or emotions
What are the two branches of cognitivism?
- Naturalism: there are objective moral facts which are to be found in facts about nature/human nature
- Non-naturalism: objective moral properties exist but cannot be defined
Give an example of a naturalistic meta-ethical theory
Utilitarianism
What is the key quote linked to utilitarianism and how does this make it a naturalist meta-ethical theory?
- ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign master, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to determine what we ought to do.’
- Bentham goes from the fact that people naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain to the ethical view that what is right is what causes pleasure, wrong is what causes pain
- Morality is therefore linked to observation and experience - we observe pain and pleasure’s relationship with action as a matter of cause and effect, but also recognise that they lie behind all claims about what we ‘ought’ to do.
What is the one intrinsic good/evil for Bentham? What does he think we ought to do because of this?
- For Bentham, pleasure is the one intrinsic good, and pain the one intrinsic evil
- We therefore ought to maximise pleasure and minimise pain, by seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number
What does Bentham think about different pleasures?
All pleasures are equal - it doesn’t matter whether it comes from a game of ‘push-pin’ or from cultural activities such as opera or poetry, and the pleasure of each individual counts for one
How and why does Bentham think we can calculate happiness?
Because happiness is a natural phenomenon, we can calculate it objectively, using the Felific calculus to measure its intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, productiveness, purity, and extent.
How is Bentham’s Utilitarianism consequentialist?
Moral value is linked to the anticipated results (choose what is more likely to maximise pleasure and minimise pain)
What changes does John Stuart Mill make to Bentham’s utilitarianism?
Mill argued (against Bentham) that the ‘higher’ cultural and intellectual pleasures are superior to lower physical ones - it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
Was Mill an ethical naturalist?
Yes, as he described happiness (or the good) in terms of the quality of life rather than quantity of pleasure, and that quality is based on the relative importance of human attributes (physical, social, cultural, intellectual)
What else does Mill change in utilitarianism?
consequences…
Mill also pointed out the value of moral rules (rather than just considering consequences) since many of the rules society uses are there because they have proved their utilitarian value over many centuries: they are justified by producing a balance of pleasure over pain, and produce a society based on justice.
Strengths of naturalism/utilitarianism
- Ethical values are reduced to properties about the world, grounded in observable properties such as pleasure and pain, giving it clear criteria for moral facts. This makes moral claims testable and publicly checkable, supporting moral progress. (If moral judgments have criteria, then societies can revise their moral beliefs when evidence changes — e.g., evidence that certain punishments cause more harm than good.)
- Objective morality: can know when doing right or wrong because they exist in the world outside ourselves. If moral claims are objective, we can meaningfully say someone is mistaken, which is essential for legal systems, moral criticism, and holding people accountable. If moral facts are mind-independent, then concepts such as human rights aren’t just cultural preferences; they are real. This gives justice weight and stability.
- Pragmatic appeal: often said that UK law and politics are broadly utilitarian in character. Utilitarianism fits naturally with policymaking - governments already think in terms of costs, benefits, consequences, and measurable impact (e.g., NHS resource allocation, welfare budgets, sentencing guidelines). It maps neatly onto how states must operate. It supports fairness and impartiality in a pluralistic society - a government cannot privilege one group’s values over another’s, so maximising overall welfare becomes a neutral, shared aim. This is why utilitarianism endures - it taps into practical moral reasoning that people already use.
Weaknesses of naturalism/utilitarianism
- Happiness varies bwn ppl
- Can’t be sure of future - guessing
- Ignores rights of minority
- Logically invalid (Moore)
What are the 2 ways in which Moore argued against naturalism?
THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY
- We cannot derive moral values from facts about the world. It is a mistake to define ‘good’ in terms of the natural property of ‘pleasure’, as to do so is to go from an ‘ought’ to an ‘is’.
- For example, from the fact of a woman being old and lonely, someone could derive the moral value of euthanising her or helping her.
- If ethical naturalism is supposed to promote objective moral facts, then we should not be able to get two different values
OPEN QUESTION ARGUMENT
- Moore argued instead that good is undefinable
- for any natural definition (like utility), the question “Is it true that maximising utility is good?” remains an open, meaningful question, unlike closed questions like “Are bachelors unmarried?”
Who was Moore inspired by and what did he think?
you are the (en)light(enment) and i will followwww….
- Followed Hume in claiming that in many ethical arguments ppl tend to start w facts and then slip into speaking of moral values - naturalistic fallacy
- Hume’s point is that this is not a valid deduction. This conclusion does not follow, is not justified, by that premise. The fact that it is human nature to find pleasure good, only means that it is human nature to find pleasure good.
Explain why Moore is an ethical non-naturalist
- To avoid the naturalistic fallacy, Moore concluded that ‘good’ is a term that can’t be defined or explained in terms of anything more basic, hence he is an ethical non-naturalist
- Although moral values and questions of right and wrong are real, and can be known, they cannot be identified w any natural properties
How do naturalists vs non-naturalists (Moore) see the word ‘good’?
NATURALISTS hold that ‘good’ is complex and analysable
- a horse, like any other natural object is analysble in terms of its parts (muzzle, tail, elbow etc.); ‘good’ is analysable in terms of its properties like pleasure
NON-NATURALISTS hold that ‘good’ is simple and unanalysable
- ‘good’, like the colour yellow, can’t be broken down in terms of its natural properties - it is a quality that things possess and sth we naturally recognise and understand, but can’t be defined (link qualia?)
- Moore’s definition is that ‘good’ means ‘good’
Give two examples of non-naturalistic meta-ethical theories
- Intuitionism
- Divine Command Theory
What is intuitionism?
Intuitionism argues that our knowledge of right and wrong does not come from evaluating results or a logical argument, but through fundamental moral intuitions
- intuitions are ‘stand-alone’ beliefs (not supported by inference from other beliefs), so moral judgements are self-evident to those who hold them
- exist independently of persons
What example illustrates the difference between utilitarian and intuitionist thinking?
The Trolley Problem!
* Trolley heading down track twd 5 - only way to save is to divert wagon onto another track where there is just 1 person
* Utilitarian would save 5, but many faced w this thought experiment cannot bring themselves to take an action that will lead to the death of 1
* There is a clash bwn a util assessment and a deeply held intuition that killing the innocent is wrong
What were W.D. Ross’ additions to intuitionism and why?
- One of the problems for Intuitionism is the extent of moral disagreement - how can it be true if everyone has a diff conception of ‘good’?
- One answer is that we have a number of duties that are self-evident (e.g. to parents, to care for the sick etc.) - W.D. Ross argued that Intutionism is how we choose bwn conflicting duties
Ross:
- pointed out that ppl sometimes have conflicting duties, and that it may not be obvious which should take priority
- e.g. doctor who sees it as her duty to keep terminal patient pain-free but also as her duty to avoid killing
- listed 7 dutues we feel insticntively we must do:
- keep promises
- pay back harm we do others
- not injure others
- return favours/services given to us by others
- not harm innocent ppl
- look after parents
- these prima facie duties - they are absolute unless there is conflict bwn them - then must balance using moral intuition to decide what to do
- e.g. mad-axeman: Kant could get no further than telling an evasive truth, but for Ross, you would simply lie to the maniac bc you have a prima facie duty to protect the innocent
- Ross would argue that the reason why majority of ppl would agree w this is bc careful thinking abt a problem reveals an intutive truth (life more imp than any prob abt lying)
- e.g. mad-axeman: Kant could get no further than telling an evasive truth, but for Ross, you would simply lie to the maniac bc you have a prima facie duty to protect the innocent
- So, providing we have sufficient mental maturity, Ross argues that our judgements on prima facie duties will be intuited truth
- explains why diff ppl/diff sitches result in diff decisions
Strengths of non-naturalism/intuitionism
- Explains why there is moral disagreement while still preserving moral realism
- Realistic in admitting that intuition is not perfect - alogns w/ irl xp
Weaknesses of non-naturalism/intuitionism
- Does not give a satisfactory answer as to how we have moral intuitions - some call it a faculty of the brain but it is one that cannot be observed so might now exist
- Stifles ethical debate as leads to moral dogmatism
- Moral intuition is subjective and inconsistent; no way to prove who is right
- Could boil down to unconscious influence of social norms - had we lived in 18th c. we might have ‘intuited’ that slavery is right
- Non-naturalism led many to turn to ethical non-cognitivism but non-cog gives an unsatisfactory account of the importance we place on our moral views and if soc as a whole comes to believe that there are no factual moral values the results are likely to be horrendous
- Some argue that Moore was wrong in his assessment of ethical naturalism…..
