The very idea Key resources: Meta-ethics in a small nutshell (short) Meta-ethics in a small nutshell Meta-ethics in a much larger nutshell (longer) Meta-ethics.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
Moral Philosophy A2 How is knowledge of moral truth possible? To what extent can moral truths motivate or justify action?
Relativism Michael Lacewing
René Descartes ( ) Father of modern rationalism. Reason is the source of knowledge, not experience. All our ideas are innate. God fashioned us.
© Michael Lacewing Metaethics: an overview Michael Lacewing
Meta-Ethics Slavery is evil Honesty is a virtue Abortion is wrong ‘Meta’ from Greek meaning ‘above’ or ‘after’
UNIT 1: WORLDVIEW THINKING What binoculars do you see the world through?
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 6 Ayer and Emotivism By David Kelsey.
Hume’s empiricism and metaethics
Scientific realism. Varieties of (the problem of) realism Ontological: is there a mind-independent world? Epistemological: can we know something about.
Moral Realism & the Challenge of Skepticism
Meta-ethics Philosophy Teachers’ Support St. Andrews 3 rd February 2007 Neil Sinclair
Judgement, Motivation and Reason Sarah Sawyer University of Sussex.
The denial of moral truth: objections Michael Lacewing
Metaethics and ethical language Michael Lacewing Michael Lacewing
Descartes on Certainty (and Doubt)
Michael Lacewing Emotivism Michael Lacewing
Prescriptivism Michael Lacewing
Two objections to non- cognitivism Michael Lacewing
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS 8.1 Forensics October 27, 2014.
Error theory Michael Lacewing
Ethics. Investigation into the foundations of moral claims.
Is goodness without God good enough?
Introducing metaethics Michael Lacewing
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS 8.1 Forensics December 2, 2013.
Meta-Ethics Non-Cognitivism.
PERCEPTION. Why an issue? Sensory perception a key source of our beliefs about the world. Empiricism – senses the basis of knowledge.
+ Ethics II The nature of moral knowledge. + Moral knowledge Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Does anybody? Is moral knowledge even.
Meta-Ethics Emotivism. Normative Ethics Meta-ethics Subject matter is moral issues such as abortion, war, euthanasia etc Provides theories or frameworks.
1 Meta-ethics Section 1 Non-cognitivism, Prescriptivism and Projectivism.
Ethical non-naturalism
Meta-ethics Meta-ethical Questions: What does it mean to be good/bad? What constitutes the nature of being good or bad?
© Michael Lacewing Is morality objective? The state of the debate Michael Lacewing
1 Meta-ethics Section 3 Moral Realism. 2 Holds that moral properties are real & independent of people’s states of mind. Moral claims can be true or false.
James Rachels 1941 – 2003 Philosopher by trade Argues against relativism.
Hume’s emotivism Michael Lacewing
Cognitivist and Non-Cognitivist LO: I will understand GE Moore’s idea of naturalistic fallacy. Ethical judgments, such as "We should all donate to charity,"
Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism – the view that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. Ethical subjectivism is a meta-ethical.
THE VERY IDEA Moral knowledge What do you think? Every woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is murder. Education is a universal right.
INTUITIONISM: GE Moore, PRITCHARD & ROSS LO: I will understand GE Moore’s idea of naturalistic fallacy. STARTER TASK: Read through the exam essay from.
META-ETHICS: NON-COGNITIVISM A2 Ethics. This week’s aims To explain and evaluate non-cognitivism To understand the differences between emotivism and prescriptivismemotivismprescriptivism.
Meta-ethics What is Meta Ethics?.
{ Cognitive Theories of Meta Ethics Is ‘abortion is wrong’ a fact, or opinion? Jot down your thoughts on a mwb Can ethical statements be proved true or.
Relativism, Divine Command Theory, and Particularism A closer look at some prominent views of ethical theory.
Non-cognitive theories: EMOTIVISM and PRESCRIPTIVISM
Basic concepts in Ethics
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Metaethics: an overview
Michael Lacewing Ethical naturalism Michael Lacewing
Michael Lacewing Relativism Michael Lacewing
What’s wrong with relativism?
Michael Lacewing Mackie’s error theory Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Chapter Two: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism
Introduction to Meta-Ethics
Recap Key-Terms Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism Realism Anti-Realism
Recap Task Complete the summary sheet to recap the various arguments and ideas of cognitive ethical language:
What can you remember about Prescriptivism?
Meta-Ethics Objectives:
Moral propositions as absolute and relative
Recap Normative Ethics
What were the 3 arguments Hume gave against moral realism?
What were the 3 arguments Hume gave against moral realism?
Ethical Language / Meta-Ethics
01 4 Ethical Language 4.1 Meta-Ethics.
Metaethics.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 12 Moral Realism and Relativism
Is murder wrong? A: What is murder? B: What is the law on murder in the UK? A: Do you think murder is wrong? B: Do you think murder is wrong? ‘Garment.
C.L. Stevenson – Emotivism
Where does morality come from?
Presentation transcript:

The very idea

Key resources: Meta-ethics in a small nutshell (short) Meta-ethics in a small nutshell Meta-ethics in a much larger nutshell (longer) Meta-ethics in a much larger nutshell Lacewing – Moral cognitivismMoral cognitivism Lacewing – Moral truthMoral truth

What do you think? Every woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is murder. Education is a universal right. The Taliban policy of preventing girls from attending school was morally permissible. It is wrong to mutilate the genitals of children. Female circumcision is right for those cultures (e.g. among many groups in the Horn of Africa) where it is a long established tradition.

In addressing these questions it feels like something hangs on the answer. Disagreements seem genuine – there’s a right answer, even if it’s hard to get to. Moral disputes do not seem like arguments over the taste of Marmite.

Meta-ethics Aim to understand the nature of moral judgements – not the elucidation of a theory of what is good, right or virtuous (normative ethics). What does this involve? What are the key issues and questions?

Key issues: (1) Meaning: is the semantic function of moral discourse to state facts? (2) Metaphysics: do moral facts or properties exist? What are they? Are they reducible to some other type of property or sui generis? (3) Epistemology: can we possess moral knowledge? What can justify our moral beliefs? (4) Objectivity: can moral judgements really be correct or incorrect? In what sense, if any, is there a moral truth ‘out there’? (5) Moral psychology: what is the connection between forming a moral judgement and acting? Does making a moral judgement necessarily motivate a person to act?

A map of the positions YES – they report the facts Naturalism v. non-naturalism Do moral judgements express beliefs? YES COGNITIVISM Sometimes true? NO – they express beliefs, but they are all false Reductionism v. non-reductionist approach SUBJECTIVISM Hume Emotivism NO NON- COGNITIVISM Error theory

Moral realism: key claims A robust, full-blown realism has these commitments. (1) Meaning: moral discourse aims to report the moral facts. (2) Metaphysics: there exist moral facts (or properties) and they are distinct class of facts (N.B differences among realists on type of facts and reduction) (3) Epistemology: We possess moral knowledge, which is to have knowledge of (some of) the moral facts. (4) Objectivity: moral facts are objective or independent of any particular beliefs or thoughts we might have about them. Although N.B the notion of objective will need to be carefully specified. (5) Moral psychology: internalism v. externalism – more on this later

Realism… So…. Moral judgements as objective. There exist moral facts or properties We can possess moral knowledge. Motivations…

Motivations - truth Realism accounts for the actual nature of our moral discourse – our judgements look and function like any other declarative sentence. The existence of moral facts explains why our moral judgements are expressed in a truth-functional way. For example… The judgement that ‘hunting badgers is morally wrong’ has the grammatical form of a sentence that is capable of being true or false. It explains why some of our judgements are true.

Motivations - justification Realism explains why I am justified or not in expressing a particular moral belief or forming a moral judgement. My belief that wanton cruelty is wrong is explained by the fact that it is wrong – the belief is supported by the way things are and (as with any other belief) it has the job of reporting of how things are. …and why we can have moral knowledge – to know that p is right/wrong is to have a justified belief about the fact that p.

Justification – disagreement and progress Moral realism explains why moral disagreements are real. Just as we may dispute what the right answer is in science, so too with moral questions. If morality is objective in this way, then it makes sense of the idea of progress as well as the possibility of error. Parallel with scientific progress - things can improve morally as we come to acquire moral knowledge.