what is meta ethics
what we mean when we call something good or bad - second order questions about first order qs - e.g what does it mean to claim something is right/wrong
what is ethical naturalism
the meta ethical view that morality is defined by facts about nature or human nature (cognitivist)
what di naturalsits beleive good is
a natural fact, morality is defined by facts about nature or human nature - use observation to work out what is right or wrong (empiricism)
how is ut a version of naturalism
wanting pleasure over pain is an observable fact and so good = maxiising pleas and bad = max oain
what do naturalists believe about ethical statements
can be translated into verifiable factual statements so can test truth of statemnets - like scientific statements
what did f h bradley say about naturalism
it is poss to understand our moral duties by observing our position or station in life which are fixed (however cant be fixed and depend on social context as change throughout time)
links to aq idea that can look at world and observe morals from our purpose
what is theological naturalism and hedonic naturalism
th - link goodness to divine will and allowing human flourishing
he - link goodness to pleasure/happiness
strengths of naturalism
- allows eth staements to be objective and gives solid guidlines and rules to follow
- can be judged by compliance to the rules giving justification for punishment and reward
- recognises importnace of moral absolutes
- nature is universal so theory supports idea morals are universally known
weaknesses of naturalism
- non cogs - eth states arent factual (ayer - are meaningless as cant be verified or falsified), not obj as bassed on feeling
- hume - moral claim arent derived from reason but sentiment - wrongness isnt part of world is something we feel rather than see
- moore - naturalistic fallacy - cant identify goodness with a natural quality + open q arg
- morality isnt universal - diff cultures, r + w subj
what do intuitionists believe about morality and good
morality is intuitive, you cant define words like good, we simply know something is good as our intuition tells us it is good (self eident)
moores intuitionism
- cant define good using any other terms than the world itself (is simple/irreducible) if do then is a naturalistic fallacy - “good is good and that is the end of the matter”
- open q arg - no natural prop can define good (e.g pleasure) as is an open q whther that property is good
- yellow analogy yellow is self evident but cant be defined by pointing st something in the woeld and saying that is def of yellow - same as good
prichards intuitionism
moral obligations present themselves to our intuitions and know when ought to do something due to intuitions - some intuitions are greater than others and is taken into account when conflict
intuition tells duty and duty is good
ross intuitionism
- some peoples intuition is better dev than others
- goodness cant be defined in natural terms
- have prima facie duties (e.g fidelity and self improvement) and intuitionism is how to choose between conflicting duties
- moral principles not absolute so can vary from diff cultures
intuituoon tells which p f duty to follow and following this is good
strengths of intuitionism
- matches with human experience of morality and does justice to the fact that humans have an innate moral sense
- not commiting natiral fallacy as seps morality from natiral world
- practical straighforward approach that acceots intuitions can be wromg which expains ethical disagreement
- most people agree what is roght and wrong which suggest spwoplw know within themsleves what is right or wrong
weaknesses of intuitionism
- cant justify op or discuss as just feel it + how doe we come to these intuitions if dont observe - vague
- intuitions may be hugely affected by social norms making it no more than the inconciuos acceptance of the norms of the soc we live in - e.g slevary - not universal
- non cog - ethics purely based on emotion and is meaningless
- nietzche - crit yellow analogy - ethical colour blindness two people see good as diff things - can be dangerous
- allows anyone to get away with anything
what is emotivism/logical positivism
args morality has no factual basis, it is entirely relative, accepts humes is ought gap - morality is just a sentiment/a feeling. rejects existence of things that cant be known through verifiable science
what is ayers view on logical positivism/emotivism
- three kinds of judgements : analytic (logical), synthetic (factual) and moral
- ethical statements are unverifiable so are meaningless and dont exist (anti realism)
- ethical lang expresses emotion and arent truth based
- boo hurrah theory - when call things good or bad just having an emotional outburst
what is the verification principle (emotivism)
- vienna circle
- way of verifying statements as facts
- have meaning or truth claim if is analytically true (1+1=2)or synthetically true (all ravens are black)
- therefore moral truth claims are unsubstantiated and lack foundation as arent observable or verified by def
2 quote from ayer
“being metaphysical, it is neither true nor false but literally senseless”
“in adding that this action is wrong i am not making any further statement about it . i am simply evincing my moral disproval of it”
what is the fallacy of hypostatisation (emotivism)
the error of treating an abstract thing as if it were a real physical entity or event - e.g the economy is struggling
according to ayer are errors of lang and meaningless statements
stevensons emotivism
- moral statements are expressions of a persons preference and are intended to influence feelings of hearer and produce resp from them
- this is goo = i approve of this amd so should ypu
- are both descriptive and emotive
strenghts and weaknesses of stevensons emotivism
strengths -
- allows for dev of a complex and sophisticated discussions of mooral lang
weaknesses -
- still reduces moral reactions about atrocities like genocide or rape to subjective personal feelings
- just cause have an emotion that something is wrong deosnt logically mean others should agree
strengths of emotivism
- allows for cultural relavtivism as is cultarlly sensitive - recognises things e.g arranged marriage could be good or bad depending on stance of diff cultures
- the importance of each induvids moral feelings is stressed - subjective nature ensures all ops are = valid - is egalitarian
- recognises diff between fact and op
weaknesses of emotivism
- verfication principle fails verification principle as neither an or synth so is meaningless
- over simplifies ethical discussion - leads to 0 discussion or reasoning as just expressing emotion
- reduces wide vareity of human lang and experience to that which we cant meaningfully talk about e.g metaphors
- leads to nihilism - if not facts then there is no ultimate right or wrong so ethical laws and norms lose any rational foundation - moral chaos life has no inherent meaning or moral structure
-
Definitions27
-
Defs Pg 114
-
Defe Pg214
-
Defs Pg314
-
Act utilitarianism Provides A More Successful Moral Framework Than Rule Utilitarianism9
-
Utility Is Not A Useful Concept Upon Which To Base An Ethical System9
-
Does Utilitarianism Provide A Helpful Method Of Moral Decision Making9
-
Pleasure Cannot Be Measured, And Therefore Utilitarianism Cannot Give Useful Moral Guidance9
-
Nl20
-
Euth30
-
Situation Ethics16
-
Utilitarianism23
-
How effective is Kantian ethics when applied to business13
-
good is a meaningless term9
-
to what extent is intuitionism correct in stating that good is self evident12
-
in meta ethics the term good has objective factual basis11
-
defining good is the most important question within ethics11
-
business ethics46
-
kant19
-
metaethics24
-
Conscience30
-
sexual ethics38
