meta- ethics

Question 1

cognitive

Answer 1

moral statements are able to be true or false

Question 2

non cognitive

Answer 2

moral statements aren’t subject to truth or falsity

Question 3

naturalism

Answer 3

‘good, bad right, wrong’- can be observed and discovered empirically using senses
- realist and cognitive

Question 4

intuitionism

Answer 4

‘good, bad, right, wrong’ - exist but can’t be seen or discovered in same was as other facts.
moral truths are self evident
- realist and cognitive

Question 5

emotivism

Answer 5

‘good, bad, right, wrong’ don’t exist
moral statements+ our feelings
- anti-realist and non cognitive

Question 6

aquinas’ naturalism

Answer 6

natural law
- world has god- given order that we can discover through observation and reasoning
- everything has purpose/telos
good if it fulfils its purpose

Question 7

mill’s naturalism

Answer 7

based on his utilitarianism
- certain acts lead to pleasure and others to pain- can discover right and wrong
- humans desire pleasures and goods - desirable things must be good in themselves

Question 8

naturalism is right to say that moral values are a feature of the world- arguments

Answer 8

• mill- what is good is what people actually desire. people all want happiness: happiness must be good
• big agreement on moral values around world
  -reducing morality to taste or opinion reduces significance of ethical debates- discussing if killing is right or wrong isn’t same as food preferences

Question 9

naturalism is wrong to say that moral values are a feature of the world- arguments

Answer 9

-Hume- is- ought problem, there is a fact value gap, right and wrong can’t be observed
- naturalistic fallacy- nature gave sharp teeth to eat meat- can’t jump from this to moral conclusion that it would be morally wrong to be a vegetarian
- Moore- criticises mills’ open question argument- pleasure can’t = goodness as it’s still possible to ask if pleasure is truly good. enough.g. eating chips
- aquinas- assumption that humans have purpose. if no purpose then no definite ideas on goodness

Question 10

who supports intuitionism

Answer 10

Moore- philosopher

Question 11

what does Moore accept about Hume

Answer 11

his ‘is-ought’ point
there is a gap between facts and values
so naturalism is wrong to suggest that moral values can be discovered

Question 12

what 2 types of questions does Moore suggest there are

Answer 12

• closed- when only one answer is possible e.g.if a triangle has 3 sides
• open- where several diff answers are possible e.g. does the triangle have a right angle

Question 13

how does Moore use his open question argument to reject naturalism

Answer 13

• if mill is right that pleasure is good- then it ought to be a closed question to ask if something that brings pleasure is really good
  but…
  this isn’t the case, it is an open question

Question 14

how is goodness known according to Moore

Answer 14

intuitively
they are self- evident

Question 15

what comparison does Moore make to explain how goodness is known

Answer 15

the colour yellow
can’t define but we all know and can recognise it
like goodness
it can’t be described but can point to many examples

Question 16

what does Moore say about the idea of goodness

Answer 16

it is a simple idea like the concept of yellow
its can’t be broken into parts or properties

Question 17

e.g. of a complex idea according to Moore

Answer 17

a horse- can list parts
(hooves, legs, mane)

Question 18

intuitionism is right to say that moral values are indefinable and self evident- arguments

Answer 18

• unlike naturalism, it takes fact-value problem seriously- doesn’t attempt to find moral values through observation of world
• recognises considerable moral agreement in world
• unlike emotivism, it can establish moral facts and ensure ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ aren’t just matters of opinion

Question 19

intuitionism is wrong to say that moral values are indefinable and self evident- arguments

Answer 19

• big amount of disagreement on many issues. - difficulty for intuitionists who claim that these truths are self evident to all
• unscientific and far-fetched, unclear what strange ‘faculty or power’ actually is. can’t be scientifically analysed
• evolutionary explanations of morality by Dawkins or psychological by freud are better accounts of morality
• it makes ethics seem like maths, where truths are self evident - they don’t argue about what 5 x 7 unlike in ethics

Question 20

who originates emotivism

Answer 20

A.J. Ayer

Question 21

what 2 types of ideas does ayer believe philosophers can obtain

Answer 21

-relation of ideas- a priori knowledge of how ideas relate to each other e.g. 2+3= 5

• matters of fact- a posteriori knowledge of things we can observe e.g. water boils at 100 degrees

Question 22

what does Hume say about books that don’t contain relation of ideas or matters of fact

Answer 22

should be ‘ committed to the flames’

Question 23

who was ayer influenced by

Answer 23

Hume
Vienna circle

Question 24

who and what idea was the Vienna circle influenced by

Answer 24

wittgenstein
his early philosophy- aim of philosophy was the analysis of language to determine what was ‘sense’ and what was ‘nonsense’

Question 25

what did the Vienna circle believe about statements

Answer 25

only meaningful if verified

Question 26

1)analytical and synthetic statements 2)what does ayer believe about statements that don't fit these categories

Answer 26

1)analytical- true by definition synthetic- it is possible to say how it would be possible to verify it 2)they are non cognitive and thus meaningless

Question 27

what does ayer believe about moral statements

Answer 27

they are factually meaningless as they are non cognitive and don't fit 2 categories

Question 28

what is ayer concerned about regarding ethical statements

Answer 28

not with what they mean but what they are for what are people doing when they use the words 'good' ' bad' 'right' 'wrong'

Question 29

what are ethical statements according to ayer

Answer 29

expressions of personal preferences or emotions (influenced by Hume who was one of first philosophers to link morality to feelings rather than reason)

Question 30

emotivism is right to suggest that moral statements merely show approval and disapproval of actions- arguments

Answer 30

- explains why people have different moral views - avoids naturalistic fallacy - recognises that disputes in ethics are often driven by feelings rather than reason - Daniel Coleman argues the emotional part of our brain reacts before the reasoning part kicks in

Question 31

emotivism isn't right to suggest that moral statements merely show approval and disapproval- arguments

Answer 31

- it renders debate and discussion of ethics useless- would be futile if both sides are merely expressing feelings - debate becomes 'boo- hurrah' match - trivialises ethical discussion. Philippa Foot- concentration camps shouldn't be reduced to matter of opinion - idea that we are merely expressing feelings and attitudes isn't a complete description of what moral language is aiming to do. R.M. Hare- moral language is prescriptive- attempt to persuade others to adopt our view

Question 32

what did Wittgenstein say was responsible for many philosophical problems? who was influenced by this?

Answer 32

misunderstanding of language "philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday" Vienna circle and A.J. Ayers

Question 33

what is macintyres criticism of meta ethics?

Answer 33

-Our society had dismantled key moral ideas (telos) but seeks to use old moral language and terminology to discuss moral ideas -Many thinkers have embraced existential thought- so discussion of moral ideas is doomed to fail- logically will lead to emotivism or nihilism The focus on meta ethics is a distraction and misses the real point of ethics

Question 34

discussion of the meaning of ethical terms is the most important debate in ethics because- arguments

Answer 34

- it is by nature the highest level of ethical discussion. good to address whether good exists before using normative methods - meaning is important, wittgenstein- can cause philosophical problems if misunderstood - if we wish to prevent a descent into nihilism, can only be done by focusing on meta ethical questions

Question 35

discussion of the meaning of ethical terms is not the most important because- arguments

Answer 35

- practically- it has no evidence for day to day moral decision making. niche subject of philosophers - even if meta ethical discussion is important, further theory and discussison is required act normative level. Moore, Hare- both argue for utilitarianism - Macintyre- focus on meta ethics is harmful for moral development. has led to emotivist and nihilism- must refocus son normative so we can share a view on what goodness is