Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
! ethical language (aka meta ethics) !, e.g. "abortion is a sin"…
! ethical language
(aka meta ethics) !
‘Normative ethics’ = study of ethical theories
aka 'meta ethics'
= the study of ethical language & the definition of the word ‘good’
2) Intuitionism or ethical non-naturalism (G.E. Moore)
Moore argued that natural forces are known through the senses, but moral facts are known through INTUITION
Called his theory “common sense realism”
Since ‘good’ cannot be defined as something else, we can only know what is good through our intuition
‘Principle Ethica’ 1901
INTUITION = what is self evidently true or good & is not derived by inference from other knowledge
Strong, absolutist, realist theory. ‘Good’ actually does exist as a universal, objective fact
Independent of humans. It’s known through humans intuition, which we all share
For Moore the consequences of an act informs you sheathe you’re intuition was properly recognised
realist theory - cognitive - objective
W.D. Ross - supporting scholar
Developed idea of intuitionism
Believed that there were foundational moral principles, known to be good through intuition - they are self evidently true or ’PRIMA FACIE DUTIES’:
Beneficence (kindness)
Faithfulness
Gratitude
Non-maleficence (no harm)
Justice
Promise keeping
Self improvement
These duties are innate in all people
In every moral dilemma 1 duty outweighs the other & you will know which though your intuition
strengths:
Human beings are thought to have an innate moral sense, independent of personal experience or circumstance.
Many different societies share moral values such as “murder is wrong” - Implies intuitions exist & universality of moral values
Crit - but what is defined as murder in come societies is lawful in others, e.g. death penalty, abortion, euthanasia (see Mackie - ‘good’ is culturally determined)
No God is required as the source of absolute ethical principles; human intuition allows us to discover these ourselves.
The theory is not guilty of the naturalistic fallacy because ethical principles & morality are independent of natural events. (Strong arg) - non-naturalistic
Objective moral values can be identified.
Strength - allows people to follow it, can provide clarity on who we should condemn & commend & good in society
No God is required as the source of absolute ethical principles; human intuition allows us to discover these ourselves
Strength - More accessible, non-religious, potential to be universally accepted.
Weakness - by having a religious backing there are consequences & moral authority
weaknesses:
Moore argues that we just know what is good: its unexplainable, self-evident - what if intuitions contradict. E.g. Nazi solider thinks killing others is wrong but has inherent sense of duty. - do some intuitions come first
Mackie - moral values are relative rather than absolute, values ‘are not part of the fabric of the world’. Points:
1- There is a difference between kind & cruel actions, acts if courage & cowardice
2- It possible to describe such acts & outline their differences, so acts of courage or cowardice are ‘part of the fabric of the world’
3- However, the values we ascribe to such acts aren’t in he world: we describe acts of cruelty but he value they are wrong isn’t an objective fact
Mackie is a critic of moral realism & view that there are moral properties in the world (either natural properties - Mill. Or intuitions - Moore). Argues that moral properties can’t be absolute cause they’re cut fully relative e.g. polygamy
Two people faced with the same moral dilemma might have different intuitions about what to do, so how is it decided which intuition is correct?
There is no link, in intuitionism, between what is right and what a person ought to do. J. L. Mackie sees this as an important criticism; he argues that morality is not just about what a person intuitively believes is right, but doing something about it. Intuitionism states what the foundational principles are, but does not explicitly expect the agent to follow them.
Can we trust our intuition when it’s influenced by an individual’s own beliefs and values?
Where does our intuition originate from? Is it formed through our upbringing and culture? If so, intuition would not be universal.
Moore fails to provide any empirical evidence of our innate intuition being true. Intuitionism could therefore be considered meaningless, as it is non-verifiable.
faced with the same moral dilemma might have different intuitions about what to do, so how is it decided which intuition is correct?
can be used to crit (objective moral values being identified strength)
J.L Mackie: there is no link in intuitionism between what is right and what a person ought to do. Morality is not just about what a person intuitively believes is right but doing something about it. Intuitionism states what the foundational principles are but does not explicitly expect the agent to follow them.
Intuitionism tries to move from “I believe it is right to do x” to “it is right to do x”. This could lead to immoral actions being justified.
If Good is an intuition and intuitions are moral, Moore is saying Good is moral
J.L. Mackie: Moral values are culturally relative rather than absolute and ‘are not part of the fabric of the world’. For example, polygamy is considered moral in some cultures, but not in others.
1 - Naturalistic Fallacy (G.E. Moore)
is committed when someone tris to define good as something else, using a natural property, e.g. what is good or pleasing
‘Good is like ‘yellow’ - too small a concept to be broken down into smaller concepts & therefore define it.
Good can’t be defined as something else or something natural
Ethical naturalists conflate (confuse) good with other, different concepts (e.g. morally neural concepts like duty or pleasure)
“I should say that good is just good and that’s all there is to it!”
He supports this with the Open Question argument:
‘What is good?’ - this is not a closed Q. It cannot be answered adequately with a simple ‘good is pleasure’ or ‘good is obeying the primary precepts’
Ethical naturalists assume it’s a closed question
‘Good’ is undefinable, but it does exist as an objective quality… we know what good is - just like yellow
It can be known through INTUITION
Realist - cognitive - objective
1) ethical naturalism
= Ethical language defines good (behaviour) by relating ‘good’ to things in the natural world. Ethical language = facts about ‘good’
Following enlightenment —> view arose that we can apply scientific ways of thinking to ethics
Morality = part of natural world & could be observed empirically
Moral truths are universal & unchanging facts (of biology, chemistry, physics):
Unchanging, universal & worked out by reason
‘Good’ has objective moral properties that can be reduced to natural properties
-- worked out by reason & A posteriori evidence
realist theory - cognitive - objective
F H Bradley (1876)
Goodness = fulfilling your place & role in society
Link to Hinduism - fulfilling your ashrama in your dharma
Cognitivism / realism
If you say ‘murder is wrong’ then I have given to murder the property of wrongness. It’s either objectively true or false.
All ethical statements are like other cognitive statements & can be evaluated A Posteriori
Cognitivism = that some statements are facts & can be proved true/false
Theological naturalism - Aquinas
Primary precepts are universally ‘good’ - they are God given absolutes & should always be fulfilled
Fulfilling PPs = Good
Hedonistic naturalism - Utilitarianism, Bentham & Mill
Good = happiness/pleasure
strengths:
if verified then its held as an objective truth & goodness is consistent throughout all societies, allowing for justice - enables us to commend & condemn people
its empirical & so the knowledge of what good is, is available to everyone
seems to align with general opinion: everyone values pleasure over pain so it makes logical sense to argue that good is pleasure (hedonistic naturalism)
accounts for our moral feelings & moral disagreements
weaknesses:
crit to 1st strength - considering moral truths as universal & unchanging facts means that is doesn't take into account differing times & cultures, what was seen as good 100 years ago mat not be seen as good in modern age - cultural relativism
E Nats conflate 'good' with different concepts, but G.E. Moore believes that
"good is just god & that's all there is to it"
open question argument - what is good? is an open Q, it cannot be adequately answered with ideas such as 'good is pleasure', but E Nats assume this Q is closed
Naturalistic Fallacy
- good is indefinable as something else as the concept is too pure, similar to 'yellow'. However, good can be known, not through objective truths but through intuition
Is-Ought Gap
- we cant move from an 'is' to 'ought', E Nats assume that their definition of good then mean you ought to behave a certain way, but Why? - Hume
Hume's Fork
- you can only know facts throughout A posteriori & A priori verification, moral statements therefore cannot be facts, only opinion
ethical statements
key words:
antirealist
may or may not refer to reality we cannot know - they reflect our perception of the world
objective
independent of personal feeling
realist
the view that language relates to real things or external states of reality
subjective
open to personal interpretation
non-cognitive language
opinion, beliefs, thing that can’t be proved true or false
analytic statements
statements true by definition or logic
cognitive language
facts proved right/wrong through A posteriori or A priori reasoning
synthetic statements
statements verifiable by empirical/evidence/A posteriori evidence
2 - the Is-Ought Gap (G.E. Moore)
G.E. Moore said that you cannot more automatically from a IS to an ought
An IS = a fact (cognitive)
An OUGHT = a prescriptive command (non-cognitive)
Why should 1 follow the other? Why do we assume that if something IS good for you you OUGHT to so it? That is just your opinion, you are making an assumption.
E.g. Sex is for reproduction, therefore only fertile males & fertile females should have sex
Ethical naturalists assume that their definition of good (cognitive facts) mean you OUGHT to behave a certain way. Why? This is an assumption & the ‘ought’ merely a command = non-cognitive statement
Moral ‘ought’ statements aren’t facts, they are opinions & shouldn’t be treated as facts.
Applying Is-Ought gap to the Primary precepts
‘Good’ = following the PPs
Worship is good therefore you should go to church
There is an automatic assumption Aquinas is making.
Hume's fork
Moral ought states aren’t facts they’re opinions & shouldn’t be treated as facts. He are only 2 types of factual statements…
only 2 kinds of 'truth claim' & they are stuck on different prongs
4) Prescriptivism (R.M. Hare)
non-cognitivist theory of ethical lang - subjective
For prescriptivists, moral statements aren’t just expressions of emotions, but commands or recommendations related to behaviour.
3 parts:
2) Ethical statements can be universalised - they apply to all people in a similar situation
It is wrong to kill an innocent life —> therefore, no one should kill an innocent life
3) Ethical statements can be justified/debated using reason - are you being consistent or inconsistent
Is it inconsistent to argue that killing the innocent is wrong & then allow abortion
1) Ethical statements act like commands - they are action guiding - I choose this & so should you/I reject this & so should you
Universalisability principle
When an individual prefers one thing over something else, his implies that this preference would e good for anybody
E.g. if X prefers to care for a sick person over going out, then this implies that were X sick then they would wish someone to act the same towards them
Hare argued that moral statements had a universal quality & its in our best interest prescribe the advice to others
This is an e.g. of the universalisability principle
Moral judgements involve not just emotion, but a command
Although moral judgments are subjective, we expect others to agree with us so they can be universalised
We can use reason to debate the application of out ethical judgements
‘Good’ is a value we give to an object or an act. ‘Good’ is therefore not a fact or property in & of itself
‘Ought implies can’ - it makes no sense to say X is good then not do X
“…our ultimate moral principles can become so simple toy accepted by us, that we treat them, not as universal imperatives but as matters of fact; they have the same obstinate indubitably” -Hare
This is a crit of Ethical naturalism, cause things have become universalised, we assume they are fact but they actually aren’t
strengths:
It explains why moral judgments change over time/place
Beliefs, opinions & values change over time - non-cognitivist theory
Wanted to create a moral system that was practical & would improve people’s lives
Was a utilitarianist - democratic, minimise suffering
Intuitions are ‘unnecessarily mysterious’ - we can rationalise our ethical judgements
Pragmatism is rational & emotional - head & heart
Hare successfully finds a way to bring reason into a non-cog theory - overcomes serious issues/weaknesses of Emotivism in which the value of ethical debate is seriously undermined
Prescriptivism explains why we can discuss ethical dilemmas dispassionately - without emotion
Helps avoid bias & judging, leads to pregnancies outcomes & increased understanding
Acknowledges the personal & its power & influence in ethical decision making
weaknesses:
There is not an ultimate reason to follow a command - simply what the majority wan you to do
Opposed to religious theories (e.g. NML) have stronger authority - God, threat of heaven or hell
Prescriptivism makes no provision for weakness of human will & assumes ‘ought implies can’
Humans are selfish & not all do good just case they can
Prescriptivist cannot condemn racism if the majority prefer/commend this (e.g. racism)
Hare would defend his position by arguing that a debate about universal application of racism would expose its undesirability/irrationality
Good/evil don’t exist & there can be no moral certainty
Prescriptivism doesn’t define god (non-cognitivist) - could justify bad things
3) Emotivism - Boo/Hurrah theory (Ayer)
Non-cognitivism
The belief that there is no ethical knowledge, cause ethical statements aren’t statements that can be proved true or false. They make a distinction between facts & values
Vienna circle & logical positivism - saw only scientific language as fact
remembering Hume:
There aren’t moral truths or facts in the world
Moral judgements are emotional responses (approval or disapproval)
Moral statements are therefore neither true or false
Objective morality is limited to shared human etiolated responses to certain things, (horror of child murder)
We cannot derive moral relates or judgements from what we observe in the world (is -ought gap) either from the natural properties or non-natural properties (intuition)
Ayer said when people make an ethical statements they are actually expressing their emotional feelings about a topic
Emotivism wont tell you how to live a moral life, but simply helps us understand moral statements: action guiding us & conveying certain attitudes
“Ethical terms so not serve only to express feelings. They are calculated also to arouse feeling, and so to stimulate” -Ayer
According to Ayer ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘right’ & ‘wrong’ express emotional states of approval disproval
therefore aka boo/hurrah theory
“You were wrong to steal that money” - contains no more factual info than: “Stealing money”
“You were wrong to…” only expresses the opinions & feelings of the speaker - it contains no verifiable facts or info
Therefore, ethical statements are not cognitive, realist, matters of facts that can be contradicted with evidence. They are expressions of feelings & opinion in which you express approval or disapproval of an action…
“Accordingly they do not belong to any branch of philosophy or science” - Ayer
Crit - trivialises ethics, means you can’t criticise people cause its their valid emotions
C.L. Stevenson
Gave a more detailed version of emotivism - ethical statements aren’t merely emotion, but seek to persuade too. Terms like ‘good’ are magnetic in encouraging action. Good is a persuasive emotional word.
Both emotion & description
Said that when an individual is making a moral judgement he is not only giving vent to his feelings, but is trying to influence other’s attitudes.
Our judgements are based on our experience of the world & our beliefs & attitudes - these can’t be reasoned about
Scientific methods cannot verifying moral claim
(you can’t verify these moral claims Hume & Ayer)
Opposite to ethical naturalism
strengths:
True to say moral opinions are often formed on the basis of gaining approval/strong feelings
History gives many e.g.s of Emotivism. E.g. Hitler’s moral vies/Westboro Baptist Church (emotional rhetoric/propaganda)
Accept all moral view as valid - no superior moral views non elitist)
Gives a reason for moral diversity e.g. F.G.M - inspires extremes of response from total abhorrence in West to acceptance & desirability in some communities (implies there's no universal, absolute morality. & implies Ethics is emotional not factual)
Still gives importance (though not meaning) to moral statements - they have a purpose (Stevenson, overcomes arg that Ayer has demeaned the value of ethical debate)
Gives a reason why moral disputes are impossible to resolve (they don’t involve reason)
weaknesses:
If ethical statements depend upon emotions, they would constantly be changing & there would be no universal understanding of morality whatsoever
The weight of public opinion becomes equally valid - everyone free to do as they choose
Ethical statements depend aren’t usually judged according to the response to the listener, but the claims themselves e.g. ‘abortion is wrong’
Everyone’s opinions become equally valid - everyone free to do as they choose
Allows complete freedom of action - everyone’s opinion is equally valid (unlike normative theories)
How do we judge between different emotions?(the scale of dislike to abhorrence is subjective)
It offers no guidance on how to act morally, unlike Intuitionism
Denies any role for reason in moral decision making
Non-cognitive - subjective
e.g. "abortion is a sin" "always do your duty"
facts? opinions?
2 views of ethical language
1) Ethical statements are facts. Cognitive language they are true or false. They are objective - independent of human feelings. Absolute & universal
2) Ethical statements are non-cognitive, based on feelings, opinions beliefs. Subjective & relative to time & place
A priori
Analytical
Necessary
A posteriori
Synthetic
Contingent