RE: Meta-Ethics

Question 1

how is meta-ethics different from normative ethics?

Answer 1

asks the following questions:

• can we define what ‘good’ is?
• when we say ‘kindness is good’ are we saying something factual.
• is moral language meaningful?

Question 2

what is David Hume’s fact/value problem?

Answer 2

• a fact is an actual state of the world.
• a value is something good, or something that someone believes to be good.

it’s impossible for us to know what is truly right/wrong because they’re based on values rather than facts.

Question 3

what is the definition of naturalism?

Answer 3

the idea that the term ‘good’ can be identified as a natural quality, for instance, pleasure.

Question 4

what is the definition of intuitionism?

Answer 4

we have the innate-a priori ability to know what’s ‘good’.

Question 5

what is the definition of emotivism?

Answer 5

moral statements simply indicate certain moral feelings.

Question 6

what do cognitivists and non-cognitivists believe in the context of meta-ethics?

Answer 6

COGNITIVISTS:

• moral statements describe the world.
• things are good/bad independently of us.

NON-COGNITIVISTS:

• people are only expressing their feelings when making moral decisions.
• moral statements are therefore subjective.

Question 7

what does the theory of naturalism state?

Answer 7

JEREMY BENTHAM:

• the term ‘good’ can be identified as a natural quality.
• utilitarianism states that good situations are ones which bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. this means that what goodness is is what happiness is.

EVOLUTIONIST VIEW:
-something is good if it gives survival advantage.

Question 8

what is absolutism and how does it relate to naturalism?

Answer 8

Absolutism: the view that is something is right/wrong, it’s always right/wrong in any circumstances.

the absolutist part of utilitarianism is in its general definition of what you should aim to do. however, some things aren’t always wrong according to utilitarianism, so it’s only absolutist to an extent.

Question 9

how is the ‘good’ a natural quality?

Answer 9

• some cognitivists think that good/bad things are good/bad independent of us. for a naturalist, they’d argue that the good is a natural property.
• jeremy bentham said that the term ‘good’ can be identified with the natural property of happiness, relates to utilitarianism.
• evolutionists would argue that something is ‘good if it gives survival advantage.

Question 10

how is the ‘good’ not a natural quality?

Answer 10

• non-cognitivists believe that people are only expressing their feelings when making a moral decision.
• the intuitionist GE Moore proposed the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. He said the the question of ‘what is good’ is an open one, it cannot be answered using natural terms. Bentham is also wrong to assume that ‘goodness’ and happiness are the same, as people can derive pleasure from things such as dog fighting etc.
• H.A. Pritchard said that goodness and obligation can’t be defined. we have an innate understanding of what we should do based on the circumstances.
• W.D. Ross said that we have ‘prima facie’ duties, we know when we ought to act in a certain way. there are certain actions that we’re duty bound to follow.

Question 11

what does the theory of intuitionism state?

Answer 11

• we can intuit (sense) which actions are good and which actions are bad.
• you are either morally sighted (innate sense of goodness) or not. you either see good actions as being good or you don’t.
• goodness is non-definable.

Question 12

what do Pritchard and Ross say about intuitionism?

Answer 12

PRITCHARD

• goodness and obligation are non-definable.
• we just know when we ought to act in a certain way.
• everyone has a different moral intuition - some more developed than others.

ROSS:

• it’s obvious that certain actions (prima facie duties) are right.
• he listed 7 duties/classes. for example, gratitude, justice, self-improvement.

Question 13

how is it possible to just ‘know’ what the good is?

Answer 13

• G.E. Moore said that goodness is ‘totally indefinable’. it’s a property of a situation that you either recognise or don’t.
• Moore used the analogy of a curtain to illustrate the idea that some people are morally sighted and others aren’t.
• Pritchard said that we know when we ought to act in a situation using our intuition. this is an a priori understanding of how we should act.
• W.D. Ross said that we have ‘prima facie’ duties that we intuit. we know when we ought to act in a certain way.
• Kant said that there are ‘categorical imperatives’. these are absolute laws that are right in any circumstance. a right action will always be a good action.

Question 14

how is it not possible to just ‘know’ what the good is?

Answer 14

• how can we properly discuss our views if we all know what the good is by intuition?
• G.J. Warnock said that it offers no way of resolving the question of what’s truly good.
• Teleological/consequentionalist ethicists would state that the term ‘good’ is only determined by the outcome of a moral problem. knowledge of the good is based on the end result.
• G.E. Moore argues that the term ‘good’ is not a natural quality. it can’t be detectable by normal experience so empiricists such as David Hume would argue that knowledge is only available through the senses.
• Augustine said that humans have been fundamentally flawed since the fall, we shouldn’t use our intuition as its been corrupted by original sin.

Question 15

what does the theory of emotivism state?

Answer 15

• ethical language is not factual because they’re non-cognitive.
• it only expresses an attitude towards a certain action.

Question 16

what does A.J. Ayer’s ‘boo-hurrah’ theory state?

Answer 16

• ethical statements can’t be verified analytically or synthetically. therefore, they’re meaningless.
• ethical statements are meaningless as we’re simply expressing statements of approval or disapproval. we do not need to feel the emotion expressed.

Question 17

what is relativism and what is its problem with emotivism?

Answer 17

relativism: the idea that certain morals/ethics and relative to a given culture.

if emotivism is true, the cognitive content of ethics is removed and pure thoughts/feelings are put in its place. this means that certain people who don’t see anything wrong with murder, for example, can do it without expecting any consequences because they don’t see it as being morally wrong.