Meta Ethics (ethical lang hs meaning)

View mindmap
  • Meta Ethics (ethical lang has meaning)
    • Emotivism
      • NON-COGNITIVE Ethical statements opinions of  speaker & are subjective, not objective moral truths - NO DISTINCTION BETW. FACTS & VALUES
        • A.J. Ayer ('Language, Truth & Logic)- ' ethical terms do not serve only to express the feelings, (ACTION-GUIDING) they are calculated also to arouse feeling and so to stimulate action.' (bit like charity ads)
          • ethical terms eg. 'good' & 'bad' meaningless - only show opinion & manipulate people - react certain way
          • surely also carry connotations learnt from society & experience therefore interpretations will be different from intentions meaning could be calculated - express feelings not influence others, although yes this does mean expresses emotion.. - from society, subliminal messages - express objective moral standards too?
          • furthers and disagrees w. absolutists, 'You acted wrongly in stealing that money' = same as 'if I had said 'you stole that money' in a peculiar tone of horror.' 'it is clear that nothing which can be said here is true or false' 'neither of us is asserting a genuine moral proposition'- statements can't be right or wrong as can't be JUSTIFIED (BOO/HURRAH THEORY) - just express approval / disapproval - subject.
            • Only 2 kinds - MEANINGFUL statements, = 1) ANALYTIC statements (true by DEFINITION) 2) SYNTHETIC statements (TESTED - experiences/ senses)
        • surely also carry connotations learnt from society & experience therefore interpretations will be different from intentions meaning could be calculated - express feelings not influence others, although yes this does mean expresses emotion.. - from society, subliminal messages - express objective moral standards too?
        • Stevenson - interest in how moral statements made & feeling intend - produce. Moral statements are emotive responses reflecting attitude & - INFLUENCE audience
          • didn't use VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE - moral terms both descriptive & emotive, when make moral judgment give vent to feelings & try to INFLUENCE others, ethical statements based - beliefs & experiences - subjective.
    • Prescriptivism
      • R.M. Hare - prescriptions are moral - universal HARE'S UNIVERSALISABILITY - believes moral lang = prescriptive
        • attempted - show moral lang = essentially prescriptive - ethical statements say what OUGHT to be done, what you would do in situation too - therefore moral bc UNIVERSAL - superior - other theories. Statements don't state facts but express WISHES/ WILL like imperatives - but prescribe them to others too - 'good' refers to set of standards.
        • allows for fact that personal preference will guide moral statements & universal, fair bc only 'prescribe' things to others if would do self
    • Intuitionism
      • good is intuitive
        • Prichard - 'ought' has no definition , however like Moore's 'good', all recognise properties - therefore moral obligations obvious as all know should do certain actions - 2 types of thinking = 1) reason - looks at facts in sit. 2) intuition - decides what to do. Recognises people's morals different, says some better developed : others - if conflict of OBLIGATIONS use intuition - decide which greater
      • 1) intuition can differ/ conflict between people, 2) can't control intuitions - can't tell people wrong 3) how can we judge it? 4) MODERN PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY - INTUITION PRODUCT OF EXTERNAL - STIRNER, INTUITION CONTROLLED BY STATE - myth of meritocracy - not all can achieve
    • Moral Naturalism
      • Moral statements can be objectively true
        • Garner (Moral Philosophy '67) - 'moral statements are capable of being objectively true because they describe some feature of this world.' (can be true as describe part of world which IS true)
          • true, if didn't describe something in world can't be proven as objectively true, eg. fairies exist - link to relig. language, almost a version of falsification
          • Moore - claiming statements can be verified / falsified using evidence = committing NATURALISTIC FALLACY (good can't be defined) - identifying goodness as natural quality = mistake
      • Moral Non- Naturalism
    • Vienna Circle (Logical Positivism) wanted to establish like facts (all proven w. empirical logic) - against meta-physics (cause & effect) - break down of traditional accepted ideas, 1st modern philosophy school - builds on work of Kant - realm of sense experience - pointless to describe 'other world' as don't have GODLY LANG
  • Ethical language
    • Virtue = 'Jolie is a good person' = meets expectations of goodness, acts morally well
    • Aquinas = 'God is good' - righteous, powerful, correct
    • Kant = 'good - duty' - normal, morally right society's expectation of you, rational, obligated to
    • naturalism = 'this car is good' (Garner) - works effectively, meets expectations of goodness (like Virtue)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar resources:

See all resources »