Meta-ethics: The language of Ethics

What were the 7 prima facie duties?

1) Duties of fidelity (promise keeping) 2) Duties of reparation - when done something wrong 3) Duties of gratitude 4) Duties of Justice 5) Duties of Beneficence - helping others 6) Duties of self-improvement 7) Duties of Non-maleficence - not harming others

Why are ethical statements not just about observable facts?

A Christian may believe that murder is wrong because they believe in the sanctity of life principle. It's not just about what is right or wrong, it's about what we believe.

What does this mean the word 'good' always has?

A descriptive meaning. If we use the word 'good' in a moral sense, again we are using a set of standards that apply to a person or an action and we commend that person or action - good therefore has a prescriptive meaning

What did Moore call the recognition of good in the world?

A simple notion

What did Moore say that good was?

A simple, unanalysable property , just a primary colour is

Who was Emotivism's primary practioner?

A. J. Ayer

In A. J. Ayer's book 'Language, Truth and Logic', what 2 kinds of meaningful statements did A. J. Ayer write about?

Analytic statements Synthetic statements

Why is it still ok to ask if something is good?

Because there is still a possibility of people having different opinions, so moving away from a factual objective statement to an ethical statement of values does not work, because it leaves an open question that has not been answered

Why are ethical statements meaningless according to the logical positivists?

Because they are not verifiable; there are no empirical facts that can be checked to see if any ethical statements are true or false

Both Ayer and Stevenson had based their opinions on the distinction between facts and values. What had Hume already claimed?

By distinguishing between facts and values you made it impossible to deduce a prescriptive statement (an ought) from a descriptive statement (an 'is'). Hare also attacked this distinction and attempted to show that ethical language is essentially perscriptive

What were the prima facie duties?

Certain types of actions he believed were right

What two branches does Meta-Ethics break down into?

Cognitive and Non-cognitive Cognitive is objective and realist Non-cognitive is subjective and anti-realist

Who did Moore base his argument on?

David Hume

Do ethical statements hold meaning?

Depends on who you are Moral realists believe that moral facts are objective facts and good and bad are independent from us

Stevenson does not use the verification principle. He did discuss the emotive meanings of words though. Words like 'respect', 'steal' and 'murder' are both...................

Descriptive and emotive Expressing also what we feel about them. An individual when making a moral judgement is not just trying to vent their feelings but trying to influence other's attitudes

What branch of meta-ethics was C. L. Stevenson a part of?

Emotivism

What did Prichard believe about people's moral obligations?

Everyone recognizes when they 'ought' to do something or a certain action, so moral obligations are obvious

So, when we talk about what is 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong', what are we actually doing?

Expressing emotional states of approval and dispproval Any other interpretation of ethical statements is meaningless

Who argued against Ethical naturalism?

G. E. Moore

Who is the Key thinker for Intuitionism?

G. E. Moore

Who is the main practitioner of Intuitionism?

H. A. Prichard

What did G. E. Moore argue against Ethical Naturalism?

He argued that Ethical naturalism commits the 'naturalistic fallacy' by attempting to claim that moral statements can be verified and falsified using evidence

Whilst Ross acknowledged other people such as Moore and Prichard for their contributions, and also recognized that 'right' and 'obligation' were indefinable, he was a deontologist. What did this mean?

He believed certain types of actions were obviously wrong.

What did W. D. Ross do with Intuitionism?

He fleshed out the bare bones of intuitionism.

Moore himself believed there were moral properties; what was his response to the problem?

He said that goodness is a 'non-natural' property which is indefinable

Whilst Ross tells us about Prima facie duties, he does not tell us something about them. What is this thing?

He still does not tell us what a prima facie duty actually is or how to decide which one to obey in cases of conflct

How does Hare argue we use the word 'good'?

In relation to a set of standards - A good chair is one that supports your back, is comfortable and fit for the purpose - A good person is someone we should try to emulate

What is the issue with criticizing emotivism?

It doesn't actually purport to be an ethical theory, but is simply an analysis of the nature and content of ethical language. It starts from the basis of logical positivism and so removes any factual content from ethical language and does not discuss ethical facts

What does emotivism help us to do?

It helps us to understand moral statements as action guiding and as conveying certain attitudes; it does not tell us how to live our life

What is the strength of Meta-ethics?

It helps with the discussion of normative ethics How can you discuss what is right or wrong when you have no idea what you mean when you say right and wrong

How does Moore conclude that goodness is not a property of happiness by using an 'open question argument'?

It makes sense to ask 'is it good' the fact that we can ask this shows those aren't the names of natural properties in the way that 'rough' and 'smooth' If we claim that happiness is naturally a good thing, we can ask 'is happiness good', but if happiness is naturally good the question makes no more sense than asking 'does happiness make people happy' Therefore because it does make sense we have to conclude that goodness is not a property of happiness

Throughout history, we have seen the powerful effects of people who act through emotive speeches - Hitler. What is the strength therefore of emotivism?

It may be seen as allowing complete freedom of action on the grounds that everyone's opinion is equally valid and so everyone can do as they like - autonomous human beings

What does a word such as 'steal' do according to emotivism?

It simply invokes feelings about what happened

Emotivism can change wildly then according to someone's upbringing, ideology and principles. What does this James Rachels to criticize it as..?

James criticizes it as 'simple subjectivism'

How does Prichard compare 'ought' to Moore's concept of 'good'?

Like Good, we can recognize the properties of 'ought' but not describe it.

What difference does emotivism have if it has its roots in the Vienna circle?

Logical positivism holds roughly that any truth claim must be tested by sense experience Ethical statements cannot be tested by sense experience, so they are not genuine truth claims and can only express feelings

What is the issue with Prescriptivism saying 'ought' judgments are universalisable prescriptives or imperatives and not truth claims

Many people do see objective and moral truth to stealing being wrong. Murder and rape are seen to be bad. Hare is saying we could just as easily chose the opposite and change our moral principles.

What is the criticism of emotivism that James Rachels points out?

Moral judgments appeal to reason, they are not just expressions of feeling. So whereas the statement 'I like orange smarties' needs no reason, moral judgments do, or else they are arbitrary

What do cognitivists believe?

Moral statements describe the world If a person says that murder is wrong they are attributing the attribute of wrongness to murder My statement is objectively either true of false

Does Ayer suggest that ethical statements are more than simply expressions of feelings?

No. But they do have the intention to stimulate others to act in the way they feel is right. This is developed by Stevenson, who questions why someone's feelings matter more than others. Emotivism can only draw attention to the reasons people have different views and let others decide.

Does that mean all ethical statements are simply expressions of emotions according to Stevenson?

No. He believed they were not just expressions of emotion, but also the result of attitudes based on fundamental beliefs, ethical disagreements between people are disagreements about fundamental principles

Does Emotivism give a reason why some people's emotional reaction is more right than someone elses?

No. Not at all. It also gives no reason why one person's feelings should stimulate person to action, rather than those of another person

Why does 'Meta-ethics' differ from Normative ethics?

Normative ethics decides whether some thing is good or bad and gives us a guide on our moral behavior, Meta-ethics is about normative ethics

So........ whilst A. J. Ayer argues that ethical statements have no factual content , does he believe they are meaningless?

Not entirely. He does not believe that they have no meaningless function.

So whilst people have different moral obligations, what is the problem with living in a relativist society where people are different?

People's morals are different. That means people's morals and obligations are different.

What did being a deontologist lead Ross to create?

Prima facie duties

Who is the main practitioner of Perscriptivism?

R. M. Hare

What two types of thinking did Prichard believe in?

Reason - looking at the facts of a situation Intuition - decides what to do

Whilst Hare believes that approaches like Intuitionism and Emotivism are useful, they do not really answer a question. What does he believe universal Perscrptivism is?

Superior. Ethical statements are prescriptive meaning they do not state facts and are not true of false, but they express our will or wishes - they are like imperatives

Where does the word 'meta' come from?

The Greek meaning 'above' or 'beyond'

Where does emotivism have its roots in?

The Vienna circle, a group of philosophers in the 1920s who developed a theory called logical positivism

What analogy did Moore use to describe how good cannot be broken down?

The analogy colour

What are the criticisms of Intuitionism?

The idea that we know what is good by intuition and not by any empirical evidence is not proved conclusively by Moore We cannot be sure our intuition is correct. Nor can we seem to develop it because sense experience cannot be used. How do we develop or decide between our duties. We cannot ever know which intuition is right because we do not all recognize good intuitively in the same way. Moral intuitions seem largely to come from social conditioning and differ between cultures, so it is hard to see how such intuitions can be a reliable guard to objective ethical truths

What is Ethical naturalism?

The theory that all ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones (natural ones) As a result they can all be falsified or verified

What are analytic statements?

The truth of falsity of the statements can be determined simply by understanding the terms that occur in them 'all bachelors are unmarried men' - examples include mathematics and logic

What are synthetic statements?

The truth or falsity of the statements can be determined by checking to establish the facts either Examples of these are science, history and ordinary life

Like emotivism, what is Prescriptivism saying?

There is a difference between the descriptive meaning When we say 'stealing is wrong', we are saying 'You ought not to steal and neither will I' We are not just saying it is bad, we are saying we would also not prescribe it for ourselves

What does non-cognitivism say?

There is no ethical knowledge, because ethical statements are not statements that can be proved true or false

How would and Ethical naturalist view the statements "Thomas More was executed for his beliefs in 1535" & "Thomas More was a good man"

They would see the first as factual, and then believe the second could be proved empirically

What did David Hume say for Moore to build upon?

To derive and 'ought' from an 'is' is logically invalid

According to Hare, what is the role of ethical statements?

To show what 'ought' to be done and such prescriptions are moral because they are universal

Moore was very partial to a normative ethical theory, what was this?

Utilitarianism

So.... This creates a problem if ethical statements are meaningless. How do we look at them. How do we follow them. What is the only way for us to understand ethical language according to A. J; Ayer?

Via emotivism, as simply an expression of feeling of approval or disapproval (BOO/HURRAH THEORY) - dammit Mrs Haig.......

Explain Moore's analogy?

We cannot define colour like we cannot define good Only be showing someone an example can we explain what yellow is. Likewise we cannot explain good, only show an example

Moore realised that goodness cannot be identified. Now this causes a problem because his favourite theory works on the premise of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. What was his solution?

We could tell good not from our senses, but from our 'moral intuition'. Therefore we can still say whether a statement is true of false

What is the issue, like emotivism, that Prescriptivism holds?

We have no reason to value other people's prescriptions over our own or vice versa Hare recognizes this problem by using the example of the fanatic who prescribed that all people of a certain race be exterminated. The only constraint Is to put oneself 'in another's shoes' but this does not stop terrorism

What happens if two moral obligations collide?

We must simply look at the obligation which is greater.

What do non-cognitivists believe?

When someone makes a moral statement, they are not describing the world, but expressing their feelings or telling people what to do Moral statements are not descriptive, and thus they cannot be described as true or false They are subjective

Did Prichard understand that different people have different morals?

Yes he did. He believed this was because some people have developed their moral thinking further than others

Are there objective moral truths in Moore's intuitionism?

Yes there are

What does the presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition add to its factual content?

You are not saying anything more than if you had simply said "You stole that money" By adding that this action is wrong you are not making any further statement about it. You are simply evincing your moral disapproval of it

Is it true that Ethical naturalism doesn't believe that ethical and non-ethical statements are the same?

no

Can Ethical statements be verified and falsified according to Ethical naturalism?

yes

Is Ethical Naturalism cognitive and objective?

yes