Meta Ethics Revision

Need to know Divine Command Theory Naturalism: Utilitarianism – right is what causes pleasure, wrong is what causes pain Non-naturalism: Intuitionism – moral values are self-evident Strengths and weaknesses of these ideas

Key terms First-order questions: questions raised by normative ethics – about how we should behave/what we should do. Second-order questions: meta-ethical questions about the nature and purpose of morality rather than content of morality

There are four kinds of ethics you can do: Descriptive – describes and compares the ethical norms in different societies Normative – investigates the questions that arise when considering how we ought to behave and what ethical norms we should follow Applied – process of applying normative principles and arguments to particular situations Meta – examines what moral language is about and how it can be justified. Meta in Greek means ‘beyond’ so it is going beyond our normative theories to ask the most general questions e.g. what is the meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’

Normative Ethics v Meta Ethics Deals with what things are right or wrong. They help people to understand what is right and moral and what is wrong and immoral. They tell people what to do and what not to do. ‘This is a good gun’ – is the gun morally good? Deals with what it means to claim that something is right or wrong. It is like a foreign language you have to understand what the word means to understand what is being said. ‘This is a good gun’ – what do we mean by using the word good. (Is it good because it fulfils its purpose or because I approve of it?

Similarities & differences Understanding words & concepts Understanding why we use certain words Reasons behind decisions Differences Meta is theoretical, normative is a guide to behaviour Meta is more rigid than normative. There is less manoeuvrability in defining words, compared to applying ethical theories. Meta is more philosophical

Do Ethical Statements have meaning? COGNITIVISTS Moral statements describe the world . They can be worked out using the senses. E.g. ‘Murder is wrong’ is stated by observing the effects of the action. Objective (not influenced by personal feelings) NON-COGNIVITISTS A moral statement is an expression of a feeling. They are not descriptive and cannot be described as true or false. Subjective (based on or influenced by personal feelings)

Meta-ethics Cognitive Non- cognitivist Objective Subjective Realist Anti-realist

Ethical values are cognitive/factual Ethical values are non-cognitive Meta-ethics Ethical values are cognitive/factual Ethical values are non-cognitive Ethical non-cognitivism Ethical naturalism Ethical non-naturalism Utilitarianism, Situation Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Natural Law Intuitionism, Divine Command Theory Emotivism Prescriptivism

Meta-ethical theories Ethical Naturalism Morality is cognitive/factual; good is real, objective and in the world. It is found to be in the facts about nature, and/or the fact about human nature (e.g. Utilitarianism finds the facts of morality in human happiness/pleasure. Ethical non-naturalism Morality is cognitive/factual; good is real but cannot be defined; it is intuited (intuitionism) or else is revealed by a supernatural source (God) so not found in nature or human nature.

Divine Command Theory Non-naturalist – moral facts are revealed by God (through scripture and the Church). God is the source of good. Many Protestant Christians follow DCT, believing it is the only true source of moral authority. What God commands must be good, what he forbids is evil. You should act in a way that reflects God’s will Link between God and humans (imago dei). Commands revealed in (for instance) 10 Commandments and sermon on the mount). Calvin – there is nothing more sublime than God’s will so whatever God commands must be good. Barth – all questions about good and evil were settled by the death and resurrection of Jesus

Strengths and weaknesses of DCT Rules are universal Good, bad, right and wrong are clearly defined by God There is an end goal of following commands – life after death God is a fair judge Ground moral behaviour of religious people in the teachings of their (factually existing) God whose commands MUST be good We cannot know that God gave these commands – there are too many issues with the text of the Bible The Bible also contains immoral commands (slavery etc) Autonomy – DCT does not allow for free moral choice (obey and go to heaven or disobey and go to hell) Euthyphro’s Dilemma – is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?

Ethical Naturalism All ethical statements are natural and can be verified. If I want to know if euthanasia is wrong, I look at the evidence and test the truthfulness of the statement. I could then argue that as it ends the suffering of an individual, it is therefore right. If you can look at the world and at people’s behaviour and can deduce right from wrong from them, you are an ethical naturalist. G.E. Moore – moral statements cannot be identified as either true or false using evidence. This would be a NATURALISTIC FALLACY (good cannot be defined). Moving from a factual objective statement to an ethical statement of values does not work

Utilitarianism (ethical naturalism – morality is defined by facts about nature or human nature) Bentham – nature has placed us all under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for them to point out what we ought to do. Pleasure is an intrinsic good, pain is an intrinsic evil Moral obligation to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Greatest happiness for greatest number John Stuart Mill – ‘higher’ cultural pleasures are superior to lower (physical) ones

Strengths/weaknesses of ethical naturalism Ethical values are seen as factual, grounded in nature/human nature Right/wrong are objective so we know what we are doing Gives us rules/guidelines We can be judged based on whether we uphold or break the rules Most people tend to follow one naturalist theory or another – some people say UK law and politics are broadly utilitarian in character anyway Weaknesses Faces popular opposition from ethical non-naturalism Moore was considered by most philosophers at the time to have destroyed naturalism by his arguments about the naturalistic fallacy Good may be undefinable (Moore’s open question argument)

Moore’s open question argument Attempt to show that good is undefinable E.g. a Utilitarian will seek to maximise pleasure over pain, so that any action which gives a balance of pleasure over pain is defined as ‘good’. So if you ask a Utilitarian ‘this action maximises utility, but is it good?’ she would have to answer yes (a closed question). But we can always stand back and ask an open question instead – ‘is it good to bring about more pleasure than pain.’

Non-naturalism Intuitionism G.E. Moore To avoid the Naturalistic Fallacy, Moore decided Right acts are those that produce the most good BUT goodness cannot be defined. We cannot use our senses but we can use our moral intuition. We recognise goodness when we see it – ‘a simple notion’. ‘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’. (Moore, Principia Ethica) Naturalistic Fallacy – in many ethical arguments people tend to start with facts and then slip into speaking of moral values without making clear that they have switched the basis on which they were arguing = the failed attempt to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’

Intuitionism Our knowledge of right/wrong comes through out fundamental moral intuitions Intuitions are beliefs that are not supported by inference from other beliefs We can just sense something is the case – torture of an innocent person is wrong E.g. the Trolley Problem

The trolley problem At the heart of this problem is a clash between a utilitarian assessment and a deeply held intuition that killing an innocent person is wrong. A big problem for intuitionism is how can it be true if there is so much disagreement between what is right/wrong?

Intuitionism W.D Ross He agreed with Moore and Prichard by saying that ‘right’ and ‘obligatory’ were as indefinable as ‘good’. He argued that certain types of actions were right – prima facie duties. Seven prima facie duties – fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, helping others, self-improvement, not harming others. If these conflict, follow the one we think is right in that situation. Intuitionism is how people choose between conflicting duties. However, he doesn’t say how we decide this.

Intuitionism H.A Prichard No definition can be given to the word ‘ought’ however everyone can recognise when we ought to do a certain action. Two types of thinking – reason (looks at the facts if a situation) and intuition (decides what to do). However, due to the fact we have different morals to each other, it is not always appropriate to use intuition to prove goodness.

Strengths/weaknesses of Intuitionism as a non-naturalist theory Everyone has moral intuitions and tends to use them whether recognised or not Overcomes the problem of naturalism that there is no agreement about the ‘facts’ of ethics Realistic in admitting that moral intuition is not perfect and explains why we still have disagreements Weaknesses Does not explain how we come to have intuitions about right and wrong People may have different intuitions but may not be able to justify them. How do we choose between such intuitions? Our intuitions may be unconsciously influenced by social norms (e.g. slavery) Ethical naturalists argue that Moore was wrong – his ‘open question’ does not destroy naturalism

Emotivism – non cognitivist A.J Ayer Emotivism helps us understand moral statements. ‘ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings, They are calculated also to arouse feeling, and so to stimulate action’. Two kinds of meaningful statements – analytic (all bachelors are unmarried men) and synthetic (the Battle of Hastings was in 1066). Ethical statements are not verifiable – they can only be understood as a expression of feelings. Boo/Hurrah theory

Emotivism – non-cognitivist C.L Stevenson Book – Ethics and Language (1944) Discussed the emotive meaning of words. When making a moral judgement we are offering our opinion on it but also trying to influence others’ attitudes. Ethical statements are therefore based on emotions but ALSO on our experience of the world and how we want it to be. Ethical disagreements are disagreements about fundamental principles.

Prescriptivism – non-cognitivist R.M Hare Ethical language is prescriptive. An ethical statement says what ought to be done and these are moral because they are universal. Ethical statements do not state facts and are not true or false, but are expressions of our will or wishes. IF we use the word ‘good’ in a moral sense we are using a set of standards that apply to a person or action and we commend that person or action. If we say someone ought to do something, we are saying that we ought to do it as well.

expression of attitudes criticised naturalism. Cognitivist and Non-Cognitivist Prescriptivism: Hare – moral statements are commands. Good is what can be universalised. Stevenson – emotivism expression of attitudes based on beliefs and a persuasive argument intended to influence others. G.E. Moore criticised naturalism. Instead he said we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. Intuitionism: What is good? Cannot be described, like ‘yellow’, we intuitively know what good is. Prescriptivism: Hare – moral statements are commands. Good is what can be universalised. Naturalism: Moral truths are facts – can be proved. Can Ethical Statements be proven true or false? Yes: Cognitivism: Moral statements purport to state moral facts (aka realism). No: Non-cognitivism:There are no ‘moral beliefs’ (accepted by emotivists and perscriptivists).