Meta Ethics

Is good the most important question in defining ethics? (3)

1. Naturalism - Yes, it is found naturally and good is an objective value 2. Intuitionism - Kinda. Pritchard - moral obligations, Moore - Good 3. Emotivism - it is meaningless. Mackie - we should still look for apparently moral actions, even though they are false

Name the primary issue with Non-Cognitivism

Could lead to a chaotic state in which truths do not exists and where moral absolutes change from day to day.

What is Moore's 'Yellow' analogy?

"We know what yellow is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is, but we cannot actually define it." When we say something is 'good' or 'bad' we are referring to properties we cannot define, but that we know intuitively and we can recognise when we see it. You do not have to experience a killing to know that murder is wrong; moral norms are not a result of the analysis of actual events.

What do Hedonic Naturalists believe? (2)

- Goodness is a fact of pleasure and happiness. - Perry: "good is an object of favourable interest."

What do Theological Naturalists claim? (3)

- Goodness is linked to the will of God as seen in nature. - God's will defines morality. - Aquinas holds this view.

What do Cognitivists believe? (3)

1) Cognitivists believe that moral statements are about facts that describe the world. 2) These moral statements are based on sense experience and can be verified by empirical data. 3) Moral concepts are real things to cognitivists; there are absolute and objective moral truths. Statements are either objectively true or false.

What types of ideas were there according to Moore? (2)

1) Complex ideas: ideas that can be broken down into smaller ideas (e.g. a dog, as it can be defined and reduced into ideas such as "quadruped", "mammal" and "carnivore".) 2) Simple ideas: ideas that cannot be broken down (e.g. the colour yellow, as we can give example of yellow things but yellow itself cannot be defined.)

What did H.A. Pritchard believe? (2)

1) Moral obligations present themselves directly to our intuitions, we will always know when we ought to do something. We use reason and intuition in moral decision making - reason collects the facts of the situation and intuition decides what we should do. 2) Prichard believed that some people's intuition could be better or more developed than others'. Where there is a conflict of obligations we should look and see which is greater.

Give two weaknesses of Cognitivism

1) Moral statements cannot be objectively real; "murder is wrong" and "London is the capital of the UK" are very different statements. 2) How can moral statements describe the world when ideas of morality in the world are so mixed? For example, some cultures believe that sacrifice is moral, but this does not describe the whole world.

What did F.H. Bradley believe?

1) Moral statements express propositions 2) Some of said propositions are true 3) These propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.

What do naturalists believe? (4)

1. According to naturalism, ethical statements are the same as non-ethical statements. 2. They can be verified or falsified by looking at the natural world or by human nature. 3. Naturalism was developed from empiricism and supporters of the theory argued that we observe the world around us before creating moral theories to fit with our observations. 4. Naturalism states that morals can be based on observation or experience rather than theory; we use our senses and logic to work out moral and ethical truths.

Give three strengths of Emotivism

1. Allows for the development of a complex and sophisticated discussion of moral language. 2. Assumes that ethical statements are not the same as empirically verifiable facts. 3. Stresses the importance of a person's individual moral feelings.

What did A.J. Ayer believe? (4)

1. Ayer believed that moral statements cannot be verified, but this does not necessarily make them meaningless. 2. Moral statements are not factual, but express the feelings of the person making them. Two people can consider the same facts and come to quite different moral conclusions; one cannot say that one is right and the other is wrong because there are no facts that separate them. It is merely a matter of individual feelings. 3. If you like something, you call it good, and if you dislike it, you call it bad. This is known as the 'hurrah-boo' theory. 4. Ayer later revisited his thought regarding emotivism and the verifiability of ethical statements. He later claimed that certain ethical statements are verifiable. For example, it can be verified that stealing is wrong because the person who steals can feel the moral wrongness of the situation. Therefore, the experience of the thief can verify the statement.

Give three weaknesses of emotivism

1. Can morality really be reduced to something as simple as hurrah/boo? 2. Emotivism reduces moral reactions about atrocities such as genocide, murder and rape to subjective personal feelings. 3. Just because you have an emotion that something is wrong does not logically mean that others should agree.

Give three objections to Bradley

1. David Hume argued that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', stating that by looking at how the world is, you cannot jump to how you can act. 2. G.E. Moore argued that by identifying goodness with a natural quality you are committing a naturalistic fallacy. 3. Right and wrong are subjective, not objective. They only exist because humans exist.

What do Emotivists believe? (5)

1. Emotivism stems from a group of philosophers from the 1930s known as the Vienna Circle, who developed the theory of logical positivism. 2. They proposed the verification principle - a system that evaluated statements to discuss whether they were meaningful. 3. They argued that for a statement to be true, it must be analytical or synthetic. 4. The philosophers analysed religious and moral/ethical language and concluded that talk of God and goodness cannot be verified. 5. There is no empirical evidence that can be checked to see if an ethical statement is true or false, therefore ethical statements are meaningless.

What did R.M. Hare believe with Prescriptivism?

1. Hare said that moral statements are more than an expression of personal values or emotions, they are in fact suggesting that others should apply the same values and follow the same course of action in similar circumstances. He said that ethical language is intrinsically prescriptive and implies what ought to be done; this is universal. These prescriptions are not objective, however. 2. Everyone in the same position would be advised to take the same approach of course of action - what's correct for one is correct for all. So, when saying 'murder is wrong', prescriptivists mean that 'you shouldn't murder and neither should I'. 3. Hare proposed that following the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") when it came to prescribing ethical behaviours through our statements. Hare did acknowledge that some people need moral laws to guide them - not everyone is capable of the reasoning and emotional responses needed to effectively apply the Golden Rule.

Give three weaknesses of intuitionism

1. How can we be sure that we can trust our intuitions? How reliable is it as a guide? 2. People intuit and reason to different conclusions - not universal. 3. Intuitionism would be considered a meaningless concept by Logical Positivists, since it is non-verifiable.

Give three weaknesses of Prescriptivism

1. How do we know which judgements are universalisable? Does this rely on subjective ideals? This could lead to a form of realism. 2. Hare's rule allows us to universalise anything and make it 'moral', the universalizability principle could be dangerous. 3. Moral judgements that are founded on prescriptions mean that there is no valid reason why we should follow one person's prescriptions more than another's.

Give three strengths of intuitionism

1. Intuitionism matches with human experience of morality and does justice to the fact that humans have an innate moral sense. 2. Allows for objective moral values to be identified and therefore proposes a form of moral realism. 3. Not guilty of the naturalistic fallacy as it separates the natural world from morality.

What do Intuitionists believe? (3)

1. Intuitionists believe that moral statements are true or false and are known by human intuition. 2. It is a strong absolutist and realist theory. 3. The theory states that moral norms have an objective existence independent of human experience; morality is intuitive.

Do people naturally understand good and bad? (3)

1. Moore - Intuitionism, Yellow analogy 2. Aquinas - God's will, conscience 3. Freud - Rationality, Ego, Super-Ego

What did W.D. Ross believe? (2)

1. Moral obligations present themselves directly to our intuitions, we will always know when we ought to do something. We use reason and intuition in moral decision making - reason collects the facts of the situation and intuition decides what we should do. 2. Prichard believed that some people's intuition could be better or more developed than others'. Where there is a conflict of obligations we should look and see which is greater.

Give two strengths of Cognitivism

1. Morality is too important to be regarded as anything other than objective; cognitivism recognises the importance of moral absolutes. 2) These moral claims can be tested by human reason and logic; humans experience the world.

Summary - what is good to the three different schools of thought (3)

1. Naturalists: Good is an objective property, and morals are found in nature/ They have an objective factual basis. 2. Intuitionism: good only reflects what is in the mind of the person using such terms 3. Emotivism: good is meaningless completely

Give three strengths of F.H. Bradley

1. Nature is universal, so the theory supports the idea that morals are universally known. 2. Presents a guideline for ethics which can easily be followed in any situation. 3. Empiricism has scientific links, giving the theory strong foundations.

Give three strengths of non-cognitivism

1. Non-cognitivism recognises the difference between fact and opinion. 2. Doesn't devalue moral statements but recognises that subjective opinions are valuable in themselves. 3. Morality is seen as a subjective matter of personal choice which society formulates into laws for the betterment of the majority's preferences.

What do Non-Cognitivists believe? (2)

1. Non-cognitivists claim that moral statements are simply subjective feelings/opinions, and therefore cannot be true or false. 2. This is what philosophers call a 'rejection of propositions'; non-cognitivists do not accept the link between empirical evidence and proposition statements.

What did C.L. Stevenson believe?

1. Stevenson believed that moral language was emotive, but that there was more to it than Ayer suggested. 2. There are disagreements in ethics which are genuine and not superficial and based simply on emotion. For example, if A says that euthanasia is wrong while B argues for the opposite, they are arguing about fundamental issues; this is far more serious than simply hurrah/boo. The question of human life is at stake! 3. Stevenson went on to say that moral statements are expressions of a person's preference, and are therefore intended to influence the feelings of the hearer and produce a response from them. To say 'this is good' means 'I approve of this, and so should you'. 4. He also argued that the verification method was inadequate when discussing moral statements. Moral statements can be both descriptive and emotive, as the descriptive language we use evokes an emotional response.

Give four strengths of Prescriptivism

1. Using the Golden Rule is consistent - to think rationally about ethics we need to be informed, imaginative and consistent. It is also relatively simple to think about. 2. Because Hare thinks that morality has to be rational, it explains why in most situations the act of murder is not prescribed; it is irrational. 3. Provides strong defence of freedom as a key element in the moral life. We are free to judge and choose whether and how to act in accordance with what is commended. 4. Explains moral disagreements - there can be genuine disagreement over which prescriptions should be universal.

What did G.E. Moore believe?

Argued that good is an indefinable notion, i.e. you cannot define the word 'good' using any terms other than the word itself. You cannot break it down to simpler ideas - if you do you are committing a naturalistic fallacy.

Name the two forms of naturalism

Theological Naturalism and Hedonic Naturalism