Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Meta Ethcis - Coggle Diagram

- - - - indicates that naturalists make an illogical jump from is to ought. Our ethical judgements must come from emotions, therefore cognitivism is false
    - - Modern virtue ethicists take this approach, returning to an Aristotelian view of moral concepts in that goodness is flourishing, which is a natural property of organisms
        
        When we call something good or bad, we refer to its enabling or disabling of flourishing and whether it is something a virtuous person would do. Similar to how it's a fact a child needs an adult, so adults ought to protect children
        
        Returning to an Aristotelian view of moral concepts reabsorbes ought back into is.
- - - - Ayer concludes ethical language just expresses emotions (boo-hurrah) boo stealing! hurrah charity!
      - Only way to disprove this would be to prove that morality is real
        
        The holocaust limited flourishing and therefore was objectively wrong, no emotion required. Anti-realism is false because moral realism is true
  - - - The concern is that nihilism might cause people to stop following morality or law. This could end society or justify atrocity.
        
        However, potentially destroying morality and causing the end of society doesn’t make Ayer’s theory incorrect.
    - - If Ayer is right that there is no right or wrong then we cannot say Hitler is wrong, Which destroys society by leading to a world of chaos
  - - - ‘stealing is wrong’ means ‘don’t steal’. which is universal, requiring us to reason with ourselves and others if we should follow this in all cases.
        Ethical persuasion is more plausible than merely of emotion
      - Moral disagreement and debate can feature rational persuasion, involving logical argument and knowledge of facts. People provide logical arguments as reasons for their moral views.
    - - Morality is relative to the culture which constructed it, but conditioning is strong enough to make people believe it is real.
        
        There is no right or wrong, but we talk of ethics as if it does exist irl and therefore is cognitive
- - - - Claims it is a fallacy to assume that something being natural assumes that it is good
        
        Open question argument - claims that trying to state the informative claim that goodness is a natural property such as pleasure, is incoherently equivalent to stating the uninformative claim that pleasure is pleasure. What goodness is is an open question and therefore cannot be defined through being equated to anything natural
    - - Goodness is like the colour yellow. We cannot aptly define or describe it yet we can intuitively know it when we apprehend it. Similarly, we can know when an action is good or bad through intuition and immediately grasp the truth of moral propositions
        
        Therefore our intuition can access the non-natural reality and lets us know whether moral propositions are true or false
  - - - However, Mackie points out that there are also vast cultural DISAGREEMENTS. This doesn't prove meta-ethical relativism however does provide an argument against moral realism
        
        moral agreement could just come from evolutionary drives and the practical requirements for a society to exist.