Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
META ETHICS (NATURALIST, EMOTIVIST, INTUITIONIST # #, PRESCRIPTIVIST),…
-
Developed from David Hume's empiricism, statement can only be 'real' or 'meaningful' if they can be verified by our senses
-
-
-
the wrongness of murder is as much a fact of the universe as the fact stabbing a heart with a knife will stop it
There is no gap between IS and OUGHT , E.g murder is wrong I ought not to do it
Key thinkers: Hume, Aquinas,
-
-
-
-
-
-
Good (X)= "being an object of favourable interest"
Right (Y)= "being conducive to harmonious happiness"
-
-
Criticism: 'good' doesn't really exist on its own, can be reduced to pleasure, happiness or God's will
-
-
Criticism: Commits naturalistic fallacy, Cannot infer from a description of how the world is to how the world ought to be
Key thinkers: G.E Moore, H.A Prichard, W.D Ross
-
'Good' is a simple unanalysable property, "If I am asked "what is good?" I answer, "good is good, and that's the end of the matter"
right acts= Those produce the most good Goodness cannot be identified with natural properties (Pleasure)
Goodness cannot be defined
Complex = 'horse', can be broken down (animal, mammal etc)
Simple = 'Good', can't be broken down
-
Moral intuition, we recognise goodness when we see it. Can say if a moral statement is wrong or right because of our moral intuition
Yellow example: Trying to explain good is like defining the colour yellow. We can't explain it but you can recognise it whenever you see it
-
-
Moral claim 'ought', can't define ought but we recognise it's properties.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Duties of fidelity (e.g Promise keeping) 2.Duties of reparation
- Duties of graditude
- Duties of justice
- Duties of beneficence (helping others)
- Duties of self-improvement
- Duties of non-maleficence (not harming others)
- Duties of non-maleficence (not harming others)
Duties conflict, we must follow the one that we think is right in the situation
-
He also doesn't tell us how to decide which one to obey in cases of conflict - depends on the individual's moral maturity
Key thinkers: Wittgenstein, A.J Ayer, Stevenson
Only 2 kinds of meaningful propositions: 1.Those known to be true by definition
- Those known to be true because that truth could be verified by sense experience
-
-
-
-
Analytic = Statement can be determined simply by understand/definition e.g. all batchelors are unmarried men
-
Concluded that religious and ethical statements could NOT be verified using either method. rendering them meaningless
Also known as Boo Hurrah Theory, Boo=Disaproval Hurrah=Approval
-
-
-
Reduces ethical statements to the level of 'I think blue smarties are the best' therefore they are meaningless
-
Argued that moral judgements contained 2 elements
- An expression of an attitude based on a belief
- A persuasive element which seeks to influence others
'this is good' = 'I approve of this, you should as well'
Believed a moral disagreement tells us more about the peoples belief, rather than simply illustrating a 'boo/hurrah' shouting match
-
-
-
-
Prescriptive = Has to advice a cause of action
Universalisable = Moral statements should be univeralised
Overriding = When make moral statements we're talking about everybody, moral ought is overring
-
Implications: There is more to saying something is good than just our attitudes, we also saying what is good for the world
-
Criticism: Hares theory permits all kinds of terrible moral theories, Nazis could univeralise their ideas and it wouldn't be wrong
-
-