Download Meta Ethics - WordPress.com

CEDAR - DCT
Meta ethics
Theological voluntarism
1. God as the origin and regulator of morality
2. Right or wrong are objective truths based on God’s will
3. Moral goodness is achieved by complying with Divine Commands
4. Divine Commands are a requirement of God’s omnipotence
5. Divine Command as an objective metaphysical foundation of morality
Modified DCT – Robert Adams
God is omnibenevolent – based on Biblical teachings – Jesus
Evil deeds can’t be done
Solve the Euthyphro Dilemma
Ethical Thought
Meta-ethical approaches
1 d Naturalism
Normative vs. Meta Ethics
Meta Ethics
Normative Ethics
Descriptive Ethics
• Explores meaning and use of ethical
language.
• Asks what things are good and bad.
•
• What do we mean by: good,
bad, right, wrong?
• What behaviour is right and wrong.
• Decides how people ought to
act and how they make moral
• E.G “What does ‘sex before marriage
choices.
is wrong’ mean?”
• These decisions may be from a
• Where do our ethical principles
group/ culture e.g. Christian tradition
come from – are we born with moral
or may be based on a philosophical
instincts or do they come from
way of thinking.
environment?
• E.G “Is sex before marriage right?”
• E.g. Natural Law, Utilitarianism,
Kant
•
•
Describes and compares
different ways societies
have answered moral
questions.
Can be called moral
sociology.
E.G “What do Christian/
Muslim traditions believe
about sex before
marriage?”
Meta Ethics
Cognitive
Objective
Ethical
naturalism
F. H.
Bradley
Intuitionism
G.E. Moore
H. A. Pritchard
W. D. Ross
Non Cognitive
Subjective
Emotivism
Prescriptivism
A. J. Ayer
C.L Stevenson
R. M. Hare
What is meta-ethics?
Meta-ethics is the term used for discussion about the nature and
validity of ethical statements.
Meta-ethical statements are about what it means to claim that
something is right or wrong; and the grounds on which it does so.
True or false
Introduction – meanings of good
Meanings of good
What do we mean by “a good guitar’? Or a good knife?
What makes a ‘good person’?
Are the meanings of good here the same or different? Is there a
prescriptive meaning of good ‘ a good person should do x’?
Naturalists believe goodness can be measured and translated into facts
(about pleasure, happiness, human flourishing).
Ethical naturalism - naturalism
With this approach, ‘goodness’ is something that exists and can be described. In
other words here is some point at which you can explain an ethical statement in
terms of a non-ethical one. What is good may be found in particular qualities, or
in the ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or in
something that fulfils its intended purpose. It claimed that ethical could be
substantiated in the same way scientific ones were, using evidence and proofs.
This means they treat ethical statements as verifiable or falsifiable e.g. “It is
raining outside”
For example – Aristotle argued that everything as a ‘final cause’, the purpose for
which it had been designed and fulfilling that purpose was what made it ‘good’.
Good pen . . .
This lead to the Natural Law approach (which is our next topic)
So, if you consider that ‘good’ can be explained in terms of some feature of the
world or of human life, then you can count yourself as an ‘ethical naturalist’.
Summary so far – moral facts aren’t views or
opinions, likes or dislikes
Ethical naturalism is the view that:
1. Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same ‘natural’
terms that we would use to define mathematics or science.
2. Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the
world as used in science.
Moral truths are facts like numbers or chemical properties.
e.g. the wrongness of murder of an innocent
I also see – the fact that it is
I see – how the person was killed, who the killer is and what
happened
despicable and wrong.
The wrongness of the murder is as
much a fact of the universe as the
fact that a knife in the heart stops
it.
Different categories of naturalists
Theological naturalists – god’s will
is the non-ethical element that is
the basis of ethical conclusions
St Thomas Aquinas
Goodness is linked to the will of
God as seen in nature.
God’s will defines morality –
murder is wrong because God
commands against murder.
Hedonic naturalists – pleasure is
the non-ethical element that is
the basis of ethical conclusions
R.B. Perry
Goodness is a fact of pleasure or
happiness
Example – from Bowie
‘Stalin helped defeat Germany’
What type of statement is this?
Can we prove it true or false?
‘Stalin was an evil man’
What type of statement is this?
Can we prove it true or false?
Starter – True or false
• Ethical Naturalism is just doing what comes naturally.
• Ethical Naturalism argues actions have objective moral properties
• Ethical Naturalism claims that ethical statements can be true or false,
like mathematical statements (cognitivism)
If an Ethical Naturalist claimed ‘lying is wrong’ what would they mean?
For example – lying causes suffering and distress – we can substitute
the word wrong for some natural feature of lying which we claim is
observable and cognitively provable. In this way ethical statement can
be verified, for example, by observing whether lying really does cause
human distress.
F. H. Bradley and the nature of ethical
statements
Ethical statements express propositions which are provable as true or
false
Moral judgement must involve a reference to what is real
Bradley’s argument is a form of cognitivism – we can know objectively
and test empirically ethical propositions e.g. ‘honesty is good’
Naturalism – F.H. Bradley (1846-1924)
Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from selfrealisation and from observing one’s position in society.
• He rejected hedonism – pleasure provides no self-understanding
• He rejected Kant’s idea of duty for the sake of duty – it doesn’t guide us into
morality or give human satisfaction.
Bradley concluded that the better approach was to pursue self-realisation
within the community: ‘. . . We have found the end, we have found self
realisation, duty and happiness in one – yes, we have found ourselves, when
we have found our station and its duties, our function as an organ of the social
organisation’ Bradley, 1927
We need to learn from – family, community, adopt the values of our society,
know our station and its duties.
The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Once your position in
life is decided, you have a duty to perform the function of that station.
Tasks
1. Complete tasks – 1, 2 and 3 in Booklet 2
2. Create a mini mind map on Bradley on page 3
Bradley
Observe society –
family, community
Summary
• Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same ‘natural’ terms
that we would use to defined mathematics or science
• Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the world as
used in scientific observation
• Naturalists come to their ethical conclusions using non-ethical evidence. In
the case of the hedonists, pleasure is the non-ethical element
• F.H. Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from selfrealisation and observing one’s position in society
• The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Know your station
and duty.
Can you think of any challenges?
Regardless of whether a situation may have evidence to support that
it is right (euthanasia) it may still break the law
Right and wrong are subjective not objective –
Do ethical/ moral situations have evidence? Which evidence do we
accept/ ignore?
Challenge Hume’s Law: Is – Ought distinction
We can gather information about world around us through sense
experience (empiricism).
We cannot move from an objective factual statement about
observations to a subjective moral one.
E.G forensic = a man is dead = verified but cannot find evidence of
wrongness of murder.
Hume believed cannot move from a fact ‘X is Y’ or ‘David is dead’ to
‘Do X instead of Y’ or ‘David is dead you ought not kill.’
No amount of fact ever sufficient to imply ethical conclusion.
“Is does not imply ought.”
Challenge: Naturalistic Fallacy
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cannot identify goodness (ethical statement)
with a natural quality – statement about the
world (non ethical statement)
To claim moral statements can be verified or
falsified = commit naturalistic fallacy.
Cannot infer from a description of how the
world ‘is’ to how the world ‘ought’ to be.
‘Is’ are factual objective statements
‘Ought’ are ethical statements of value.
Cannot use facts to work out how we ought to
act.
G.E.Moore
Challenges to ethical naturalism
Hume’s Law (the is-ought problem)
Hume is pointing out that factual
statements and moral statements are of a
different kind
Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy (moral
language is indefinable)
Open Question argument (moral facts
cannot be reduced to natural properties)
Moore
Answer questions 4 ‘ Explain Hume’s argument
for an is/ought gap’
What is an ‘is’?
What is a natural property and why do critics
claim it can’t apply to ethical statements?
Question 5 ‘How does Hume think moral
statements and beliefs are derived?’
What is an ‘ought’?
What is an ‘open question’?
Explain Hume’s argument about the ‘missing
premise’
What is the Naturalistic Fallacy?
How are ‘open questions’ used to challenge
ethical naturalism?
What is moral motivation?
Give an example of an open question
Can you think of any strengths?
Based on what is natural – everyone can experience it
Nature is universal so supports argument that morals can be universally known factual
Presents a solid guideline that ethics follow in every situation.
Evaluating Ethical Naturalism
• Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same.
• The extent to which ethical statements are not objective.
Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the
same.
They are the same
They are not the same
• Critics complain that a good definition of "natural property" is
problematic, but it would normally refer to a property which can be
discovered by sense observation or experience, experiment, or through
any of the available means of science, and this just does not apply in the
case of ethical statements.
•
Moral truths are facts like science and maths
•
Moral truths are based on observation and analysis
• G.E. Moore Naturalist Fallacy – Can’t go from an ought to an is
Can see the impact of moral actions e.g. lying
• Hume ethical statements are not like non-ethical statements – missing
premise, motivation for morality is feelings and desires
•
• Can’t be tested and not empirical –
•
When I observe that something is wrong it is an objective fact of the universe
• Moral statements are opinions, views
• Moral statements are spiritual
The extent to which ethical statements are not
objective. – what can you use from the last plan?
Not objective
Are objective
Cognitive
Hume – moral motivation
Opinions
Based on observation e.g. lying
James Rachels – ‘ethical naturalism begins by identifying goodness with satisfying
our interests.’
Inquiry into the natural world – same as science and maths
G.E. ethical statements don’t have a natural property
Moral facts are facts of nature
Naturalistic Fallacy
Bradley – ethical statements are objective – based on observation of society