Ethics and Metaethics Based on Kernohan, A. (2012). Environmental ethics: An interactive introduction. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, Chapters 1 & 2. Prepared by D. G. Ross, Auburn University. Images copyright D. G. Ross, unless otherwise noted.

When we make ethical decisions, we’re making normative decisions. Normative = How things ought to be. Thus, normative decisions guide action and seek agreement. “Punching your classmate is wrong.” (Ethical judgment) = “Do not punch your classmate.” (Action guiding) = “We can agree that you should not punch your classmate.” (Agreement seeking) OW! D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Ethical situations generally involve (1) a moral agent, (2) an action or series of actions, (3) consequences, and (4) a recipient of the consequences. 1.Moral Agent: Responsible for action (the doer, or the actor, to which praise or blame is typically assigned) 2.Action: Something that occurs as a results of the moral agent’s decisionmaking process 3.Consequences: Result from action 4.Recipient: Receives the consequences of the moral agent’s action(s) Agent Action Recipient OW! Consequence D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Three overarching ethical theories directly relate to the four primary elements of an ethical situation: Virtue Ethics: Relate to the moral agent’s character Deontological Ethics: Relate to the agent’s duties and obligations in any given situation Consequentialist Ethics: Are concerned with the outcome of an agent’s choice of action and what that means for (the) recipient(s) Virtue of? Obligation to? Consequences of? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

To work through any given ethical situation, we must determine who or what is given moral standing. Moral Standing: Of ethical concern – Anthropocentrism: Only humans have moral standing – Non-Anthropocentrism: Extends moral standing to non-humans Zoocentric: Assigns moral standing to all animals Biocentric: Assigns moral standing to all living things, including plants Ecocentric: Extends moral standing to ecosystems (communities of living organisms in conjunction with non-living components) ? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Consider this image from a non-anthropocentric view. Under zoocentrism, what has moral standing? Biocentrism? Ecocentrism? What do these models mean with regards to action? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

How we act towards non-humans is contingent upon our perceived duty towards the non- human. Indirect: The duty (toward a non-human) is owed to a human Direct: The duty (toward a non-human) is owed to the non-human Because you own that lake, I will not dump my used car oil in it. D. G. Ross, Auburn University

As we weigh ethical decisions, we often assign value to elements involved in the decision. I nstrumental value: X can be used to bring about (cause) value Intrinsic value: X has value in its own right D. G. Ross, Auburn University

When we study the meaning of ethical judgments, we’re engaging in metaethics. “Metaethics is the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice. […] Metaethics explores as well the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation, asking how it is that moral standards might provide us with reasons to do or refrain from doing as it demands, and it addresses many of the issues commonly bound up with the nature of freedom and its significance (or not) for moral responsibility.” Sayre-McCord, Geoff, "Metaethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =. ? D. G. Ross, Auburn University

We can categorize the various approaches to metaethics as follows: Nihilist: There is no right or wrong Skepticist: There may be right or wrong Universalist: Given a similar situation, right is right for everyone, wrong is wrong for everyone Relativist: Right and wrong are culturally dependent Expressivist: Saying an action is right or wrong implies attitude towards action – This model explains why ethical judgments shape action, but not how or why judgments are made Prescriptivist: Saying an action is right or wrong implies a command toward action Cognitivist: Saying an action is right or wrong asserts belief – This model explains how judgments are made, but not how judgment shapes action D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Because ethical judgments are normative (action guiding and agreement seeking), “moral agents cannot be obligated to perform actions that they are, by their very nature, unable to perform” (Kernohan, p. 19). This is the difference between “ought” and “can.” Help!! I ought to save that person! D. G. Ross, Auburn University

Another aspect of the normative nature of ethical decisions is that we can never derive ethical judgment purely from facts. Facts are inert. For a case to be of ethical interest, there must be an ethical premise. Inert: Not active. Doing nothing. Lacking the ability to do. Ethical premise: A proposition from which we base argument, derived from some ethical theory (Relativism, Divine Command, Egoism, Consequentialism, Deontology, Moral Pluralism, Justice, Virtue, Feminism, etc.) “A 100-pound rock dropped directly on a human’s bare foot will cause pain” OW! D. G. Ross, Auburn University

“Hume’s Guillotine” helps us separate “is” (Fact) from “ought” (Normative Statements.) Fact (is) Normative statement/ ethical premise (ought) Conclusion/normative statement 1. Guns shoot bullets. 2. Bullets can hurt people. 3. Hurting people is bad. 4. Guns should be banned. (1) And (2) have no ethical value—there’s nothing to argue. The argument is in (3), then, from (3), (4). Any argument from (1) and (2) is ethically inert (and invalid). D. G. Ross, Auburn University

And back to the beginning: Ethical judgments are normative decisions which guide action and shape agreement—each aspect of the analytical process helps us refine our decisionmaking process and our argumentation. D. G. Ross, Auburn University