Meta Ethics A02

Question 1

the definition of the word good does define the study of ethics

Answer 1

• language used is not insignificant as matters of morality often inform law
• it can mean different things to different people
• to make sense of moral debate discussing what the speaker means by the words they use raises new questions about the issues

Question 2

the definition of the word good does not define the study of ethics

Answer 2

• does not matter whether language used points to anything fixed/absolute as long as agreement about general direction in which it points
• morality is matter of custom - understanding that custom is important and why important to people not that we all mean same thing by term ‘goodness’
• Foot

Question 3

what does Foot suggest about whether the word good defines the study of ethics

Answer 3

• other ways of talking about morality in terms of virtue habit or practice e.g. rather than definition of good
• we should focus on how to flourish as humans
• focus on motivation or conscience

Question 4

what does Pritchard suggest about whether the word good defines the study of ethics

Answer 4

• offers other words like duty and obligation and right to use alongside good
• do I have a duty to do what is good
• Am i obliged to always do my duty
• however these sorts of questions shed light on different dimensions of moral language and do eventually come back to a question of defining ‘goodness’

Question 5

morality is objective

Answer 5

• American Dec of Independence - all created equal, that these truths are self evident to be seen by all
• morality clearly identifiable and objective in this document
• idea of objective moral truth powerful
• capacity to command authority over all
• provide assurances on what we should/shouldn’t do
• if objective we can be confident about how to live and the kinds of laws we need
• rights could be more strongly defended as certainties not hopes or beliefs
• help confirm responses to abhorrent perceptions - slavery as wrong as a moral fact not just opinion

Question 6

morality is objective (Moore vs Stevenson)

Answer 6

• said must be some facts behind our moral utterances
• if two people make opposing moral judgements they’re based on facts
• if they were not there would be no disagreement
• Stevenson said could be disagreeing over beliefs not facts
• morals may be down to subjective beliefs perhaps informed by cultural differences

Question 7

is morality objective? (Stevenson)

Answer 7

• if morality is a matter of your beliefs/background then what is morally ‘true’ is only true for you
• if morality part of our individual world view rather than universally shared - advantage of reflecting what we personally believe and cannot bind others
• when it comes to laws and customs not clear whether morality has anything to do with them
• thinks our moral language has a purpose - attempt to persuade others to agree with our beliefs

Question 8

assess subjectivism

Answer 8

• celebrates person identity and individuality
• not so good for groups, communities, societies
• e.g. when it comes to issues like FGM we may find ourselves unable to agree on society wide convention
• if morality is subjective and we disagree on what is right and wrong perhaps the only principle we can agree to objectively is to thine own self be true

Question 9

cultural importance in morality

Answer 9

• perhaps we are kidding ourselves giving morality a position of cultural importance
• perhaps are own moral utterances nothing more than emotional outbursts and have no meaning
• we feel things but that doesn’t relate to facts or reflect shared understanding
• just human response in particular moment
• if this is morality then its not something we could confidently rely on for a system of justice and law making and would make the need to form moral cultural traditions difficult to justify

Question 10

what is a problem with intuitionism in terms of systems of justice

Answer 10

• intuitionism is an experience of just knowing when something is right or wrong and not needing to be trained in it as we are born with it
• the problem is how we translate such an elusive thing into systems of rights and justice
• when we try to do this we discover not everyone shares the same sense of wrongness
• some people commit acts others think are immoral

Question 11

problem of intuitionism in terms of universality

Answer 11

• if moral knowledge is something we just have or just know then how do we make sense of those who do not have it or know it
• or have a different moral compass

Question 12

what do Emotivists like Ayer and Stevenson think

Answer 12

• do not think moral expressions reflect a kind of knowledge but merely an emotional response to something
• moral thoughts do come from within us but are not reliable facts
• outbursts of expression or belief

Question 13

what is a problem with relying on Emotivists thinking

Answer 13

• we can have very complex and contradictory feelings about things
• Philosophers like Ross thus think morality involves discerning between different moral duties and working out which is the right one
• sometimes possible to make an error

Question 14

what do Aquinas and Foot suggest about where knowledge of what is right and wrong comes from

Answer 14

• reasoned reflection on the world
• in this case moral knowledge is product of wisdom, intelligence and reason
• information received and processed and a moral judgement is the result

ISSUES:

• moral judgements can produce feelings
• a sense of moral injustice can create a powerful emotional response that is far from a reasoned judgement
• people have differing moral views suggesting logic or reasoning behind one perspective is not clear to everyone

Question 15

moral knowledge as linked to human psychology, emotion and personal histories, cultures, beliefs and spirituality

Answer 15

• not to say these have to influence our moral decision making just that we are affected by them and so we cannot be sure they do not affect our knowledge of right and wrong as opposed to solely intuition
• most clear in psychology where past experiences have gone on to shape how we respond to things in the future
• also true with spirituality/ beliefs people hold
• there might be different way of knowing right or wrong through a link to a divine power
• connects people in a way LPs would not understand
• knowledge perhaps more mysterious than some people think

Question 16

what is the problem on relying entirely on an inner moral compass

Answer 16

• morality is fundamentally something that relates to other people
• social dimension means there really needs to be some way of agreeing a set of morals we can all live by
• relying on my inner feelings to justify the moral rules that everyone has to live by may not be very persuasive to others

Question 17

discuss issue with inner moral compass and perception of reality

Answer 17

• the experiences/awareness that feeds our understanding are things we feel within ourselves
• so do we distinguish the moral elements from the other elements of the reality we perceive
• we might just know moral statement inside ourselves but is that not true of all knowledge, feelings and preferences

Question 18

strengths of emotivism

Answer 18

• avoids naturalistic fallacy
• reconceives how we think about ethics after accepting fact value gap
• as its desires not reason that moves us to act - offers clear account of moral motivation free from non-natural properties that moral realists think are built into the fabric of the universe despite been imperceptible to our senses
• grounding ethics in emotion accounts for why moral disputes are often filed with heat
• emotivism cautions those who would negotiate between disputing parties
• wrong to argue reason will play a modest role given the emotional nature of humans
• strong account for what happens in a moral debate

Question 19

weakness of emotivism (reason)

Answer 19

• reason may be slave of passions but doesn’t mean we should exclude its role prematurely
• it can ask that we be consistent, imaginative and informed
• require that we apply logic to our sentences and arguments
• emotivism too quick to give up on moral reasoning

Question 20

weakness of emotivism (Blanshard)

Answer 20

• offered a counter example to emotivism
• consider rabbit in hunter’s trap dying painfully out of sight of humans
• if right and wrong are merely human emotional reactions then in the absence of humans this is neither right or wrong
• if humans do observe the wrongness lasts only as long as their feelings do
• if we forget about the rabbit its pain no longer counts according to the emotivist
• Blanshard points out the absurdity in grounding right and wrong in something as fickle as feelings

Question 21

weakness of emotivism (defining good)

Answer 21

• if ‘good’ is defined in terms of emotions there is no need to universalise this good which is likely to lead to ethical egoism
• I might hate to be tortured myself but happy about minimising risk of terrorism by torturing those suspected of it
• morality as a matter of taste is wide open to persuasion by propaganda when reason has been abandoned
• do our moral claims about right or wrong really boil down to trying to get someone to share our feelings

Question 22

weakness of emotivism (moral progress)

Answer 22

• if emotions are based upon knowledge claims they can be reasoned over
• a racist may come to see their belief is mistaken and change their conduct
• but if morality is non-cog its hard to see how moral progress can be possible
• was the abolition of slavery or EPA only due to a change of emotions? seems quite reductionist

Question 23

weakness of emotivism (fact-value distincition)

Answer 23

• if the fact value distinction can be shown to be mistaken then emotivism is seen to be built on weak foundations

Question 24

strength of naturalism (objectivism/observation)

Answer 24

• moral virtues are too serious to be reduced to matters of taste and opinion
• naturalism’s moral objectivism allows claims to be discussed rationally
• although proof that moral facts are observable in the natural world can be elusive, basing our ethics on observations that can be evidenced and reasoned over offers a solid foundation for contesting controversial issues and resolving disputes

Question 25

strength of naturalism (objectivism/egosim)

Answer 25

- appealing to objective measures of pleasure and pain rather than to preferences is proving to gain more grip in persuading many young earner to give away ten percent of their income to the poorest in the world - effective altruism movement - naturalism can say to the rich egoist consumer that spends on himself while aware of the suffering of others that his actions are ethically wrong as judged by an objective standard

Question 26

strength of naturalism (nihilism)

Answer 26

- rejecting naturalism and believing moral claims are nothing but opinions risks nihilism - gives us little rational defence against tyranny and abuse where 'might makes right' - affirming naturalism can motivate protests against injustice or form a basis for natural rights - seeing morality as a subjective emotion can lead to cynicism and make citizens of democracies negligent in protecting the rights and privileges they presently enjoy

Question 27

weakness of naturalism (reducing pleasure)

Answer 27

- reduces good and evil, right and wrong to natural categories or psychological states like pleasure or pain - if you could be hooked up to an experience machine that stimulated your brain with pleasurable experiences indistinguishable from real life what reason would there be to prefer real life to this - if a naturalist identifies pleasure as an intrinsic good this could lead to absurd conclusions like good = maximising the number of pleasure machines available in the world

Question 28

weakness of naturalism (fact-value gap)

Answer 28

- if Hume is right than oughts cannot be derived from an is - this fact value gap cannot be bridges by drawing ethical conclusions from non-ethical premises - what kind of a social science experiment would move from description to prescription - moral norms may be a product of culture and cannot be established with the objective certainty available in matters of science or logic

Question 29

weakness of naturalism (observation)

Answer 29

- naturalists believe moral knowledge can be observed in nature/human nature - despite this they find it hard to convince sceptics - Hume concluded we just have to live with the limits of what humans can know and be certain about - human nature will continue to emote and praise and blame - we cannot outrun out natures - but we need to exercise caution and focus our enquiry into matters of fact we can empirically observe

Question 30

strengths of intuitionism

Answer 30

- morally realist so offers sense of moral duty or motive to act - this motivation to act in line with our moral intuitions fits with everyday common sense morality - faced with the fact value gap ethicists may struggle to argue why conc caps are objectively and universally wrong - but there was and still is widely held intuition that they are a crime against humanity - if our consciousness of moral truths is successful we can trust it as realistic without the need for divine commands - we can have a sense of there being duties and objective right and wrongs

Question 31

weakness of intuitionism (disagreements)

Answer 31

- non intuitionists can explain how disagreements arise more easily than intuitionists - relativists - morality product of different cultures and values - error theorists