Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ETHICS: META-ETHICAL APPROACHES - NATURALISM, INTUITIONISM, EMOTIVISM…

- - - - this part refers to non-natural property - sui generis (unique)
  - - - 1) what is intrinsically good/ valuable?
        
        answered through intuition, cannot be proved
      - 2) what kind of action ought i to perform?
        
        requires proof, understood through knowledge of good, w/ analysis of consequences
  - - - obvious truths - relative to individual, not obvious to everyone
      - self-evident truths - objective, don't need to be proven as it has its own evidence
- - - - expression of feeling
      - attempt to evoke a response
  - - - moral statements are an exclamation, and is why the theory is also known as the 'boo hurrah theory'
      - demonstration of moral language presents connection between moral statement judgement and sayer's behaviour
      - negative expressions to an action would show they would resist said action due to their negative feelings about it
      - it would be inconsistent if they perform behaviours they feel negatively about
  - - - definitions of ethical terms/ judgements about legitimacy of definitions
        
        ayer thinks the only ethical philosophy possible is meta ethics
      - phenomena of moral experience + causes
        
        psych., socio. (descriptive ethics); behaviour we witness in people/ society
      - exhortations to moral virtue
        
        commands to provoke action; not subjects for philosophy/ science
      - ethical judgements
        
        unclear, according to Ayer; not definitions, not subject of any philosophy
  - - - ayer's issues with naturalism - their way of defining ethical terms is wrong; it isn't self-contradictory to say actions that create happiness can be bad
      - ayer's issues with intuitionism - it gives no method for deciding between conflicting intuitions, so it wouldn't be suitable to test the validity of moral propositions
      - ayer does agree with intuitionists on fundamental ethical concepts being unanalysable as they have no criteria to be tested for validity
        
        this is because they are pseudo-concepts - having the appearance of a concept, but have no objective validity
      - if a statement has nothing that proves if it's true or false, there is no objective validity
      - arguments between moral agents aren't based on fact; this is just expression (emoting), and applies to all ethical terminology
      - terms contain empirical facts, but ethical judgements remain purely emotive
    - - ayer mentions there is further function to ethical judgements, which is to inspire others to feel the same way + influence
      - statements have different levels of persuasive intensity depending on terms used
      - meaning of 'good' differs to meanings of 'ought' or 'duty', as it provokes different level of response
  - - - subjectivists see ethical statements as non-empirical proposals about how one is feeling. ayer says if they were propositions, then they could be proven true or false. a challenge can't be made without a proposition. ayer does mention that statements about feelings and statements of feeling sounding similar (e.g., saying you're bored, looking bored, sighing out of boredom)
      - challenge to goodness/ badness of an action determining what a person feels. emotivism denies ethical judgements having validity, so it doesn't try to suggest that feelings are enough to base an ethical judgement on