Meta Ethics

Cognitive (Moral statements are facts, absolute)

Non-Cognitive (Subjective view of what is good)

Naturalism

Intuitionism or Ethical non-naturalism

Emotivism

Prescriptivism

G.E Moore

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'?

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be true" - Sherlock Holmes

Ethical naturalists treat moral statements as propositions

'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

It claims descriptive statements are the same as prescriptive ones

CRITICISMS

  • It is too simplistic
  • "Naturalists in short, resort to all sorts of supposed facts" - Charles Pigden

Critic of Naturalism but still believed that it is possible for us to decided whether a moral statement is true or false

Goodness is a non-natural quality and is therefore undefinable

Goodness cannot be defined just as 'Yellow' cannot be (It can only be defined in relation to something else and it is the same for goodness)

He believed we cannot use our sense to determine somethings truth, instead we rely on our moral intuition

"If I am asked 'What is good?' my answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter"

Naturalistic fallacy or the "Is ought gap"

  • the deduction of an 'ought' from an 'is'.
  • According to Moore, when philosophers try to define something good as pleasurable or pleasant, they are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Suggesting goodness and pleasantness are the same thing, it is a jump in their reasoning.

Prichard

  • It wasn't only goodness that is indefinable but also the idea of obligation (In the same way goodness is unrecognizable, so are our obligations
  • Different people have different intuitions due to people developing their moral thinking further than others
  • Our reason looks at facts, our intuitions tell us what to do
  • AO2 - "the introduction of the word 'intuition' but a philosopher is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong with an argument" - McIntyre

W D Ross

  • Builds on Prichard, whilst he agrees that 'right' and 'obligatory' are as indefinable as good, he was a deontologist (duty based).
  • He talks about Prima Facie duties, a certain type of action that is intrinsically right.
  • If we follow these duties, we will do what is right e.g. Fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, helping others, self improvement and non-malice.
  • If these duties conflict, we should use our intuition and use the one that feels most right.
    AO2 - there is no singe good, cultural relativism

R M Hare

  • People prescribe their beliefs - when we make moral statements we are not only expressing our feelings but encouraging others to share our attitudes e.g. Head teacher telling kids not to bully
  • What you prescribe through ethical statements should be universiliable and the role of ethical statements is to say what should be done
  • When we use the word 'good' we relate it to a set of standards e.g. A chair is good if its fit for its purpose
  • By saying its right you expect people to do the same
  • "If we assumed a perfect [logic]... the moral evaluations that we [make]...would be bound [to agree]" - If everyone thought the same and had the same experiences, we'd have the same prescription

Moral language is not objective

If a statement cannot be tested then no-one can know with certainty whether it is true or false - it is meaningless

Moore's idea of knowing what is good and bad through our intuition was rejected by ethical non-cognitivists such as A J Ayer (Links to logical positivism and Vienna Circle)

Ayer

  • When we make moral statements such as 'stealing is wrong' we aren't talking about objective facts which can be known but expressing our emotions or feelings about the issue
  • The statement is only true or false if it is an accurate representation of the speakers feelings
  • It is therefore sometimes called the 'Boo-Hurrah' theory as you are saying 'Boo stealing is wrong'
  • "When making ethical statements I am simply presenting my moral disapproval of it"

C L Stevenson

  • He modified Ayers view, he went on to argue that these attitudes are not just arbitrary to the day, but are based on beliefs about the world and the ways it should work.
  • E.g. we disapprove of the Holocaust not just because they weren't to our taste but because we have a firm belief about human worth
  • When we use ethical terms like murder, they all describe
  • You cannot separate peoples emotions from ethical language
  • When you use ethical language, you impose your view on it and influence others as well

Hume

  • 2 types of statements
    -Analytic = truth contained within it (tautology) A priori
    -Synthetic = A posteriori
  • These two types of statements are the only time of meaningful language and ethical statements don't fit into either

AO2

  • If everything is all about how we feel and our emotions, how can we know anything at all?
  • James Rachels claims that there is more to ethical statements then emotions, reasoning is involved.

AO2

  • Denies the possibility of moral judgement and doesn't help people understand why they should follow what other people prescribe
  • Mackie argued against Hares claim that moral statements are prescriptive and Universalisable. His preferences might be different to someone else's