Meta Ethics
What is meta ethics?
An analysis of ethical language
Explores the meaning of words used in ethical statements
What do mean mean when we call something good or bad?
Not 'what is a moral action?', but what is morality
Meta = beyond/about/external assessment
It is not the study of ethics, about the study about ethics
What does good mean?
Is it something I approve of? e.g. recycling
Is it something that fulfils its purpose? e.g. a knife that cuts
Is it someone or something that has moral worth e.g. MLK Jr
Is it my own opinion? e.g. I like TTS
Is it what God says we should do? e.g. 10 Commandments
Is it something I like? e.g. KStew
How many different kinds of sentences can you do with good in?
Normative Ethics
Ethics branch into meta and normative
Normative decides which things are good and bad and gives a guide for moral behaviour - all ethical theories are normative --> Natural Law, Kantian Ethics, Virtue ethics etc
You can apply them to a situation and work out what's right or wrong
Objective
Ethical values exist independently - they can be observed from the outside
Based on facts and true for everyone e.g. water is wet
Some actions are intrinsically good
Subjective
Each person's values are relative to that person, so they cannot be judged by anyone
Based on personal emotion or feeling
KStew is the best person ever (she is)
My foot hurts
Whether an action is good or bad depends on one's opinion
Cognitive - Objective
Moral facts can be known objective
Moral statements can have a true meaning
They are based on facts
There is such a thing as good and bad
A moral quality such as kind is just real as a physical quality such as smooth
Non-Cognitive - Subjective
Moral statements are subjective
Moral statements are descriptive
They are describing feelings telling people what to do
They are not true or false
Ethical Naturalism
You can actually define what 'good' is
Ethical statements can be proven true or false
Ethical statements are based on evidence - they are factual
You can use evidence to prove or disprove ethical statements. it is cognitivist and objective
Genetic research is right
Euthanasia is wrong
We need to protect the environment
It is wrong to cheat on your partner
Normative and Meta Ethics
All Normative ethics are based on Ethical Naturalism
Good can be defined
Ethical statements are based on statements
Good can be known through reason
It is not just a feeling or opinion
Ethical Non-naturalism
There is such a thing as good, but it cannot be defined
You can use 'good' to describe and object or an action
It has a meaning and is not subjective
However, it is not empirically measurable
Ethics branch into two sections - Normative and Meta Ethics. Normative Ethics decide what is good and bad, whereas Meta Ethics takes an observatory seat and question the decisions and stipulations made by normative ethics. Normative ethics consists of ethical theories like Kant's, Situation, Natural Law etc, which all offer set rules for what is right and wrong. Normative ethics would look at, for example, Natural Law and question it. It would ask what exactly makes following our purpose 'good'? What is good? What is our purpose? In short, Normative ethics tell us what to do, while Meta Ethics question what we are told to do.
Cognitive approaches to Meta Ethics
Intuitionism
GE Moore
Non-naturalist
Non-emperical BUT ethical language is meaningful, just no factual
'I don't need to observe a murder to know that killing someone id wrong, I just know it is' It's called intuition
We have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things
Good is a a quality that things posses but it cannot be defined
We naturally recognise and understand it
Moral judgement are self-evident
A comparison is made with the colour yellow. You can see it, but you can't define it. Good like that
When making a moral decision, we're simply choosing the outcome which will bring about these good things
Is-Ought Gap
How do we get from 'murder is killing' to 'murder is wrong'
'Is' is factual; 'ought' is moral judgement
The problem with ethical naturalists is that they make a leap from FACT (is) to a MORAL JUDGEMENT (ought)
Euthanasia is mercy killing -- is . It is kind to euthanise people -- ought ---> how did we make the jump from i to ought?
People who do this are guilty of naturalistic fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Fallacy = an incorrect argument in logic
The jump from an ought to an is, from fact to judgement
Simple vs Complex
Complex - a 'horse' can be described by breaking it down into:
Animal
Mamman
Has four legs (quadruped)
Equine
Simple - 'yellow' we can't break it down any further
'If I am asked 'what is good?', my answer is good is good, and that is the end of the matter'
A.J 'Freddie' Ayer Emotivism
Also called the Boo-Hurrah Theory
Influenced by a group of philosophers called logical positivists
Vienna Circle
Based at Vienna University
Believed empirical science was the main source of knowledge
A statement is only meaningful if you can verify it
Analytical - statements are true by definition. By analysing the constituent parts we know they are true
A spinster is an unmarried woman
All triangles have three sides
Synthetic - observations of the world gathered through our sense and science
It's snowing outside
There's a squirrel in a tree
Moral statements cannot be verified synethitically or analytically, therefore they are meaningless
Capital punishment is wrong
Stealing is bad
Emotivism - when we say something is wrong, we are merely. Expressing an emotional reaction to a certain set of events or fact
Gay people ought to be allowed to marry = gay marriage Hurrah
Abortion is morally wrong = abortion Boo
NON-COGNITIVE
Moral statements are no different from expressing our liking or disliking for something
C.L Stevenson
Emotivist
Expressing an emotion
Expressing an attire rude based on personal beliefs and trying to influence others