Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Meta Ethics (Cognitive (Moral statements are facts, absolute)…
Meta Ethics
Cognitive (Moral statements are facts, absolute)
Naturalism
-
'Acid turns litmus paper red' is something we can use evidence to find its truth alongside an experiment. Ethical naturalists believe it is equally possible to establish moral facts by looking at evidence
E.g. If we want to establish if stealing is wrong we look at the facts, stealing brings about unhappiness
AO2 - Not always one outcome as suggested here, it might bring about some unhappiness but also might bring about some happiness, Utilitarianism might help here
-
CRITICISMS
- It is too simplistic
- "Naturalists in short, resort to all sorts of supposed facts" - Charles Pigden
-
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be true" - Sherlock Holmes
Meta-Ethics
- Used to describe the presuppositions and language of morality, what are we doing when we use words like 'good'?
- Meta-Ethics philosophers try to work out what we do when we use moral language
- They try to define what our language actually means
- People have suggested that normative ethics is pointless until we know what the words actually mean
Compare the words 'ought' in these 2 examples
- 'You ought to wear that colour more often' - the speaker is expressing a view, you are free to disagree and if this happens you aren't behaving immorally.
- 'You ought to be faithful to your wife' - 'ought' is being used in a moral context. The speaker is expressing a view but they might not have the authority to make this judegement.
William Morris - "Have nothing in your house which you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful" - here he makes a careful distinction between the two verbs. We know for a fact whether something is useful or not, but beautiful is far more subjective, in which category might we place the word 'goodness'?
-