Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Subjectivism Ethical Subjectivism – the view that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. Ethical subjectivism is a meta-ethical theory Does not tell us how we ought to live Does not tell us what specific actions are right or wrong Simple Subjectivism “x is morally acceptable” “x is right” “x is good” All these statements = “I (the speaker) approve of x” Problems with Simple Subjectivism No one is infallible There cannot be moral disagreement (though in fact there is disagreement about moral issues). Emotivism Emotivism does not view moral assertions as either true or false. Reporting – “I (the speaker) approve of x” Expressing – “Hurrah for x” (does not express my feelings about x) Moral statements are essentially commands, and not at all fact stating. Virtues of Emotivism Problem with fallibility is avoided since moral utterances are not true or false. Different senses of disagreement Factual disagreement Disagreements about what we think ought to happen Disagreements about attitudes Disagreements in attitude Problem with Emotivism Cannot account for good and bad reasoning in ethics. If moral statements are commands intended to change the attitude/behavior of another, then any reason given that successfully changes someone’s attitude is morally appropriate. Proofs in Ethics Subjectivism and Emotivism are troubling because they seem to imply that reason is not an important element of morality. “No Proof Argument” (1) If there were any such things as objective truths in ethics, we should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and others are false. (2) But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are true and which are false. (3) Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics. Objections to the “no proof argument” Inappropriate standard of proof i.e., ethics ≠ science The difficult proofs in ethics are analogous to difficult proofs in science Example: Geometry Point: No, length, no width, no depth. Point 10 Infinite number of points in 2 directions Line 11 Connect three lines and you get. . . Triangle 12 So what did you study in Geometry? 13