CEDAR - DCT Meta ethics Theological voluntarism God as the origin and regulator of morality Right or wrong are objective truths based on God’s will Moral goodness is achieved by complying with Divine Commands Divine Commands are a requirement of God’s omnipotence Divine Command as an objective metaphysical foundation of morality Modified DCT – Robert Adams God is omnibenevolent – based on Biblical teachings – Jesus Evil deeds can’t be done Solve the Euthyphro Dilemma

Ethical Thought Meta-ethical approaches 1 d Naturalism

Normative vs. Meta Ethics Normative Ethics Descriptive Ethics Explores meaning and use of ethical language. What do we mean by: good, bad, right, wrong? E.G “What does ‘sex before marriage is wrong’ mean?” Where do our ethical principles come from – are we born with moral instincts or do they come from environment? Asks what things are good and bad. What behaviour is right and wrong. Decides how people ought to act and how they make moral choices. These decisions may be from a group/ culture e.g. Christian tradition or may be based on a philosophical way of thinking. E.G “Is sex before marriage right?” E.g. Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Kant Describes and compares different ways societies have answered moral questions. Can be called moral sociology. E.G “What do Christian/ Muslim traditions believe about sex before marriage?”

Meta Ethics Cognitive Objective Subjective Non Cognitive Intuitionism Ethical naturalism Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism G.E. Moore H. A. Pritchard W. D. Ross J. Ayer C.L Stevenson R. M. Hare F. H. Bradley

What is meta-ethics? Meta-ethics is the term used for discussion about the nature and validity of ethical statements. Meta-ethical statements are about what it means to claim that something is right or wrong; and the grounds on which it does so. True or false

Introduction – meanings of good Meanings of good What do we mean by “a good guitar’? Or a good knife? What makes a ‘good person’? Are the meanings of good here the same or different? Is there a prescriptive meaning of good ‘ a good person should do x’? Naturalists believe goodness can be measured and translated into facts (about pleasure, happiness, human flourishing).

Ethical naturalism - naturalism With this approach, ‘goodness’ is something that exists and can be described. In other words here is some point at which you can explain an ethical statement in terms of a non-ethical one. What is good may be found in particular qualities, or in the ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or in something that fulfils its intended purpose. It claimed that ethical could be substantiated in the same way scientific ones were, using evidence and proofs. This means they treat ethical statements as verifiable or falsifiable e.g. “It is raining outside” For example – Aristotle argued that everything as a ‘final cause’, the purpose for which it had been designed and fulfilling that purpose was what made it ‘good’. Good pen . . . This lead to the Natural Law approach (which is our next topic) So, if you consider that ‘good’ can be explained in terms of some feature of the world or of human life, then you can count yourself as an ‘ethical naturalist’.

Summary so far – moral facts aren’t views or opinions, likes or dislikes Ethical naturalism is the view that: Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same ‘natural’ terms that we would use to define mathematics or science. Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the world as used in science. Moral truths are facts like numbers or chemical properties. e.g. the wrongness of murder of an innocent I also see – the fact that it is despicable and wrong. The wrongness of the murder is as much a fact of the universe as the fact that a knife in the heart stops it. I see – how the person was killed, who the killer is and what happened

Different categories of naturalists Theological naturalists – god’s will is the non-ethical element that is the basis of ethical conclusions St Thomas Aquinas Goodness is linked to the will of God as seen in nature. God’s will defines morality – murder is wrong because God commands against murder. Hedonic naturalists – pleasure is the non-ethical element that is the basis of ethical conclusions R.B. Perry Goodness is a fact of pleasure or happiness

Example – from Bowie ‘Stalin helped defeat Germany’ What type of statement is this? Can we prove it true or false? ‘Stalin was an evil man’ What type of statement is this? Can we prove it true or false?

Starter – True or false Ethical Naturalism is just doing what comes naturally. Ethical Naturalism argues actions have objective moral properties Ethical Naturalism claims that ethical statements can be true or false, like mathematical statements (cognitivism) If an Ethical Naturalist claimed ‘lying is wrong’ what would they mean? For example – lying causes suffering and distress – we can substitute the word wrong for some natural feature of lying which we claim is observable and cognitively provable. In this way ethical statement can be verified, for example, by observing whether lying really does cause human distress.

F. H. Bradley and the nature of ethical statements Ethical statements express propositions which are provable as true or false Moral judgement must involve a reference to what is real Bradley’s argument is a form of cognitivism – we can know objectively and test empirically ethical propositions e.g. ‘honesty is good’

Naturalism – F.H. Bradley (1846-1924) Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from self- realisation and from observing one’s position in society. He rejected hedonism – pleasure provides no self-understanding He rejected Kant’s idea of duty for the sake of duty – it doesn’t guide us into morality or give human satisfaction. Bradley concluded that the better approach was to pursue self-realisation within the community: ‘. . . We have found the end, we have found self realisation, duty and happiness in one – yes, we have found ourselves, when we have found our station and its duties, our function as an organ of the social organisation’ Bradley, 1927 We need to learn from – family, community, adopt the values of our society, know our station and its duties. The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Once your position in life is decided, you have a duty to perform the function of that station.

Tasks Complete tasks – 1, 2 and 3 in Booklet 2 Create a mini mind map on Bradley on page 3 Observe society – family, community Bradley

Summary Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same ‘natural’ terms that we would use to defined mathematics or science Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the world as used in scientific observation Naturalists come to their ethical conclusions using non-ethical evidence. In the case of the hedonists, pleasure is the non-ethical element F.H. Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from self- realisation and observing one’s position in society The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Know your station and duty.

Can you think of any challenges? Regardless of whether a situation may have evidence to support that it is right (euthanasia) it may still break the law Right and wrong are subjective not objective – Do ethical/ moral situations have evidence? Which evidence do we accept/ ignore?

Challenge Hume’s Law: Is – Ought distinction We can gather information about world around us through sense experience (empiricism). We cannot move from an objective factual statement about observations to a subjective moral one. E.G forensic = a man is dead = verified but cannot find evidence of wrongness of murder. Hume believed cannot move from a fact ‘X is Y’ or ‘David is dead’ to ‘Do X instead of Y’ or ‘David is dead you ought not kill.’ No amount of fact ever sufficient to imply ethical conclusion. “Is does not imply ought.”

Challenge: Naturalistic Fallacy Cannot identify goodness (ethical statement) with a natural quality – statement about the world (non ethical statement) To claim moral statements can be verified or falsified = commit naturalistic fallacy. Cannot infer from a description of how the world ‘is’ to how the world ‘ought’ to be. ‘Is’ are factual objective statements ‘Ought’ are ethical statements of value. Cannot use facts to work out how we ought to act. G.E.Moore

Challenges to ethical naturalism Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem) Hume is pointing out that factual statements and moral statements are of a different kind Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy (moral language is indefinable) Open Question argument (moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties) Moore Answer questions 4 ‘ Explain Hume’s argument for an is/ought gap’ What is an ‘is’? What is a natural property and why do critics claim it can’t apply to ethical statements? Question 5 ‘How does Hume think moral statements and beliefs are derived?’ What is an ‘ought’? What is an ‘open question’? Explain Hume’s argument about the ‘missing premise’ What is the Naturalistic Fallacy? How are ‘open questions’ used to challenge ethical naturalism? What is moral motivation? Give an example of an open question

Can you think of any strengths? Based on what is natural – everyone can experience it Nature is universal so supports argument that morals can be universally known - factual Presents a solid guideline that ethics follow in every situation.

Evaluating Ethical Naturalism Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same. The extent to which ethical statements are not objective.

Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same. They are not the same They are the same Moral truths are facts like science and maths Moral truths are based on observation and analysis Can see the impact of moral actions e.g. lying When I observe that something is wrong it is an objective fact of the universe Critics complain that a good definition of "natural property" is problematic, but it would normally refer to a property which can be discovered by sense observation or experience, experiment, or through any of the available means of science, and this just does not apply in the case of ethical statements. G.E. Moore Naturalist Fallacy – Can’t go from an ought to an is Hume ethical statements are not like non-ethical statements – missing premise, motivation for morality is feelings and desires Can’t be tested and not empirical – Moral statements are opinions, views Moral statements are spiritual

The extent to which ethical statements are not objective The extent to which ethical statements are not objective. – what can you use from the last plan? Not objective Are objective Cognitive Based on observation e.g. lying Inquiry into the natural world – same as science and maths Moral facts are facts of nature Bradley – ethical statements are objective – based on observation of society Hume – moral motivation Opinions James Rachels – ‘ethical naturalism begins by identifying goodness with satisfying our interests.’ G.E. ethical statements don’t have a natural property Naturalistic Fallacy