MetaEthics

Question 1

3 features of cognitivism

Answer 1

true or false
describes the way the world is
expresses belief

Question 2

ethical naturalism

Answer 2

claims that good can be identified with what a naturally occurring feature of the world is e.g. happiness, pleasure, health ect.

util is example because it identifies goodness with pleasure

Question 3

Critisism of ethical naturalism: naturalistic fallacy flaw

Answer 3

attacks the idea that goodness can be linked to a natural concept. Argues good is indefinable.

Problem= there is nothing intrinsically good about natural properties, they are only good if we define them as good.

Question 4

Crisitiam of ethical naturalism; open question arguement

Answer 4

open question=sometimes be answered yes and sometimes no.
closed question=always yes or no, ‘Dave is vegan, Does Dave eat meat?’

If we define good in terms of natural properties e.g. ‘goodness is pleasure’ it leads to the open question ‘is it good killing/stealing/lying when it leads to pleasure?’ Sometimes yes if it leads to the death of an evil dictator and sometimes no in ordinary circumstances.

Therefore words such as pleasure and other natural concepts cannot define good

Question 5

critisism of ethical naturalism: is-ought gap

Answer 5

if we follow ethical naturalism we are lead to making an is an ought. e.g. If goodness is what leads to the greatest good for the greatest number then ‘we ought to do what leads to the greatest good for the greatest number’

Hume observed this as a misunderstanding in the nature of language: ‘is’ describes ‘ought’ commands, one doesn’t lead tot he other e.g. ‘your hair is bad’ doesnt necessarily lead to ‘you ought to get your haircut’

Question 6

if natural concepts did define good… (interchangeable)

Answer 6

if natural concepts such as pleasure did define good then they would be interchangeable, so wherever good was used pleasure could also be used. Like a 3 sided shape is interchangeable with triangle.

Natural concepts aren’t interchangeable with good e.g. ‘what the nazis did was good’ ‘what the nazis did was pleasurable’

Question 7

What does Moore’s intuitionism claim

Answer 7

good can be defined no more successfully than yellow, they’re both indefinable. By trying to define yellow we can only do this by referring to something with its qualities. Example- EM wavelength between 570 and 590.

Similarly when we try to define good we refer to something else which possesses its qualities e.g. kindness

Question 8

Moore how do we know ethical values, what is good and bad?

Answer 8

Moore argues through intuition that values are known directly and are self-evident and indefinable.
For example compassion is seen as good but this is not because man reasons it to be so with reference to natural or empirical observation but rather through reason. Goodness resists definition because people have different moral opinions without logical contradiction. Yet there is much agreement between people in moral issues this is because humans have an inner sense which directs them to what is right or wrong independent of natural properties in the world. Moore was once asked what is Good? And he replied “good is good and that is the end of the matter”.

Goodness resists definition because people have different morals and logic yet there’s much agreement between moral issues because humans have an inner sense of what is right and wrong

Question 9

Hares Prescriptivism

Answer 9

Moral language functions like imperatives and so killing is wrong means don’t kill. Moral values have no truth value but prescribes attitudes to others.
This is non-cognitivist as it is neither true nor false merely a prescription of action and anti-realist as it’s subjective in nature.

Question 10

A J Ayers emotivism

Answer 10

Non cognitivist approach, moral statements are neither true not false but reflecting emotions. Highlighs what the speaker thinks is true not what is objectively true

The only info we can gain from ethical claims is the way the speaker feels and what they intend to influence the other to feel and do. Ethical claims are not propositions such a 1+1=2 but commands.

Question 11

Boo!Hurrah! theory A J Ayer

Answer 11

Killing is wrong = Boo to killing.
Charity is good= Hurrah to charity.

Question 12

C L Stevenson development

Answer 12

Argued moral statements express either approval or disproval, reflecting attitudes not facts.
Accepted there will always be moral disagreement because approval or disproval comes from different sets of beliefs.

e.g. a starving family would produce different approval on stealing

Question 13

A J Ayer “you acted wrongly in stealing…”

Answer 13

In his book Language,Truth and Logic “You acted wrongly in stealing that money” states nothing more than “You stole that money” in terms of description. ‘wrongly’ only adds personal feelings

e.g. Pregnant student, lecturer states “abortion is wrong” isn’t factual but an attempt to persuade

Question 14

Stevenson 3 features

Answer 14

1) Intelligent diagreement can occur over moral questions -ethics isnt objective

2) Moral terms such as ‘good’ are magnetic in encouraging action

3) The scientific method (empirically verifyable) is unable to verify ethical claims

Question 15

Magnetic critisism

Answer 15

Nor all moral claims are magnetic (meant to encourage action).

if you were to say to someone who already agrees ‘killing is wrong’ there is no encouragement of pursuasion hence not magnetic

Question 16

Not uniquely persuasive critisism

Answer 16

non ethical language is also persuasive.

e.g. an advert for shampoo, phrases like ‘cleans and strengthens’ are not ethical yet seek to persuade.

Question 17

Not always emotive criticism

Answer 17

Words like good, right or wrong don’t always arouse emotion.
Its wrong to say 1+1=3 and wrong to say Birmingham is the capital of England. But no emotion is involved.

In moral debates - abortion we use rational argument to persuade people rather than emotion. Logical facts foetus doesn’t have the same faculties as a baby.

Question 18

Ethical non- naturalism: Moore’s intuitionism

Answer 18

G.E. Moore in his Principia Ethica (1903) famously criticised ethical naturalism with his open question argument leading him to argue good is indefinable in either natural terms e.g. as pleasure or supernatural terms e.g. following God’s commands. The essence of his argument is as follows:
1): If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question “Is it true that X is good?” is meaningless.
2): The question “Is it true that X is good?” is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).

Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.

Question 19

Ayers verification principle application

Answer 19

It developed out of logical positivism from A. J. Ayer’s work in the meaning of language which argued that in order for something to be meaningful it must be either analytic or empirically verifiable to be meaningful. Phrases such as ‘stealing is wrong’ or ‘it is good to give to charity’ are neither true by definition (analytic) as good does not contain the concept of giving to charity (unlike in the way the triangles contains the concept three sided shape) nor are they empirically verifiable-we do not see that stealing is wrong we judge it to be wrong/right.
Therefore the phrase “killing is wrong” is not true or false but means something like “I do not like killing”. Not only is it an expression of opinion but also a recommendation for action to others. Therefore it means not only “ I do not like abortion” but also “Do not have an abortion”.

Question 20

Moral realism vs anti moral realism

Answer 20

Moral Realism: The view that moral properties (like goodness/badness) exist in reality.
Moral anti-realism: The view that moral properties (like goodness/badness) do not exist in reality.

Question 21

What is meta- ethics debating

Answer 21

There are two main aspects to the question of what goodness is: metaphysical and linguistic.

Metaphysical: What is the nature of goodness? There are two opposing views on this:

Moral Realism: The view that moral properties (like goodness/badness) exist in reality.
Moral anti-realism: The view that moral properties (like goodness/badness) do not exist in reality.

Linguistic: What is the meaning of ethical language? There are two opposing views on this:

Cognitivism: ethical language expresses beliefs about reality which can therefore be true or false.
Non-cognitivism: ethical language expresses some non-cognition like an emotion, does not attempt to describe reality and therefore cannot be true or false.

Question 22

Link

Answer 22

Debates between cognitivists and non-cognitivists in ethical language has been significantly influenced by debates between cognitivists and non-cognitivists in religious language (showing links to Philosophy of Religion). In the same way as a cognitivist such as Ayer rejects the idea that ethical language is objectively (fact stating) meaningful he also rejects the idea that religious language can be meaningful for the same reasons.