Download Meta-Ethics

Meta Ethics
The Language of Ethics
What do you need to know?
• How ethical language is used
• What different philosophers think is meant
when people use words such as ‘good’ and
‘bad’.
• Whether morality is a matter of individual
feelings or of reason.
• Whether there are any objective moral truths.
• The different theories of meta-ethics.
Scholars
•
•
•
•
•
•
H.A Prichard
G.E. Moore
W.D Ross
C.L Stevenson
A.J Ayer
R.M. Hare
Ethical theory – meta ethics
• This is the discussion about the nature of
ethical statements (expressions of a point of
is murder
view or a statement of fact?)Abortion
and whether
for Catholics as
these are useful or valid.
Abortion
is
murder
believe
• Meta-ethics analyses ethicalthey
language
andin the
sanctity
of life.
seeks to understand the meaning
of moral
judgements.
• Can an ethical statement have any meaning?
Normative Ethics v Meta Ethics
Normative Ethics
Deals with what things are
right or wrong. They help
people to understand what is
right and moral and what is
wrong and immoral.
They tell people what to do
and what not to do.
‘This is a good gun’ – is the
gun morally good?
Meta Ethics
Deals with what it means to
claim that something is right or
wrong.
It is like a foreign language you
have to understand what the
word means to understand
what is being said.
‘This is a good gun’ – what do
we mean by using the word
good. (Is it good because it
fulfils its purpose or because I
approve of it?
Similarities & differences
Differences
Similarities
a) Meta is theoretical,
a) Understanding words
normative is a guide to
& concepts
behaviour
b) Understanding why we
b) Meta is more rigid
use certain words
than normative. There
c) Reasons behind
is less manoeuvrability
in defining words,
decisions
compared to applying
ethical theories.
c) Meta is more
philosophical
Do Ethical Statements have meaning?
COGNITIVISTS
Moral statements
describe the world .
They can be worked out
using the senses.
E.g. ‘Murder is wrong’ is
stated by observing the
effects of the action.
Objective (not influenced
by personal feelings)
NON-COGNIVITISTS
A moral statement is an
expression of a feeling.
They are not descriptive
and cannot be described
as true or false.
Subjective (based on or
influenced by personal
feelings)
Meta-ethics
Cognitive
Non- cognitivist
Objective
Subjective
Realist
Anti-realist
Ethical Naturalism
All ethical statements are
natural and can be
verified.
If I want to know if
euthanasia is wrong, I look
at the evidence and test
the truthfulness of the
statement. I could then
argue that as it ends the
suffering of an individual,
it is therefore right.
G.E. Moore – moral
statements cannot be
identified as either true or
false using evidence.
This would be a
NATURALISTIC FALLACY
(good cannot be defined).
Moving from a factual
objective statement to an
ethical statement of
values does not work
Intuitionism- Cognitive
G.E. Moore
Right acts are those that produce the
most good BUT goodness cannot be
defined.
We cannot use our senses but we can use
our moral intuition.
We recognise goodness when we see it –
‘a simple notion’.
‘We know what ‘yellow’ is and can
recognise it whenever it is seen, but we
cannot actually define yellow. In the
same way, we know what good is but we
cannot actually define it’.
(Moore, Principia Ethica)
Intuitionism - Cognitive
H.A Prichard
No definition can be given to the word
‘ought’ however everyone can recognise
when we ought to do a certain action.
Two types of thinking – reason (looks at
the facts if a situation) and intuition
(decides what to do).
However, due to the fact we have
different morals to each other, it is not
always appropriate to use intuition to
prove goodness.
Intuitionism - Cognitive
W.D Ross
He agreed with Moore and Prichard by
saying that ‘right’ and ‘obligatory’ were
as indefinable as ‘good’.
He argued that certain types of actions
were right – prima facie duties.
Seven prima facie duties – fidelity,
reparation, gratitude, justice, helping
others, self-improvement, not harming
others.
If these conflict, follow the one we think
is right in that situation. However, he
doesn’t say how we decide this.
Emotivism – non cognitivist
A.J Ayer
Emotivism helps us understand moral
statements.
‘ethical terms do not serve only to express
feelings, They are calculated also to
arouse feeling, and so to stimulate
action’.
Two kinds of meaningful statements –
analytic (all bachelors are unmarried
men) and synthetic (the Battle of
Hastings was in 1066).
Ethical statements are not verifiable –
they can only be understood as a
expression of feelings.
Boo/Hurrah theory
Emotivism – non-cognitivist
C.L Stevenson
Book – Ethics and Language (1944)
Discussed the emotive meaning of words.
When making a moral judgement we are
offering our opinion on it but also trying to
influence others’ attitudes.
Ethical statements are therefore based on
emotions but ALSO on our experience of
the world and how we want it to be.
Ethical disagreements are disagreements
about fundamental principles.
Prescriptivism – non-cognitivist
R.M Hare
Ethical language is prescriptive. An ethical
statement says what ought to be done and
these are moral because they are universal.
Ethical statements do not state facts and are not
true or false, but are expressions of our will or
wishes.
IF we use the word ‘good’ in a moral sense we
are using a set of standards that apply to a
person or action and we commend that person
or action.
If we say someone ought to do something, we
are saying that we ought to do it as well.