Meta Ethics

?
View mindmap
  • Meta Ethics
    • Cognitivism
      • The idea that statements are capable of being true and false
        • Naturalism
          • Believes in right and wrong
          • Right and wrong can be worked out empirically
          • Type of moral realism
          • Three types of naturalism
            • Mill
              • believes that observation of pleasure and pain will lead you to moral truths
            • Bradley
              • believed that observation of social norms will lead you to moral truths
            • Aquinas
              • believes that observation of God’s purpose will lead you to moral truths
          • One problem with naturalism is the idea of the naturalist fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy says that is is a mistake to identify a moral claim, about what is good, with something that is natural. For example, you have sharp teeth. It is part of your nature to eat mean. Therefore is it good to eat meat  and wrong to just eat vegetables. You cannot draw the ‘wrongness’ because it is not empirical.
          • When we see an action such as murder, the wrongness of it does not come to our senses in the same way that we may observe the murderer’s actions. G E Moore says “Goodness resembles yellow more than it resembles a horse.” therefore saying that goodness is a simple idea; the concept of yellow cannot be broken down into parts or properties as you could with a horse. It cannot be described but you can point to many examples that you ‘just know’ are good.
        • Intuitionism
          • Such a thing as goodness but goodniess is not like other properties
          • We have an intuitive sense of right and wrong and moral facts - it cannot be worked out
          • Moral facts
            • Naturalism
              • Believes in right and wrong
              • Right and wrong can be worked out empirically
              • Type of moral realism
              • Three types of naturalism
                • Mill
                  • believes that observation of pleasure and pain will lead you to moral truths
                • Bradley
                  • believed that observation of social norms will lead you to moral truths
                • Aquinas
                  • believes that observation of God’s purpose will lead you to moral truths
              • One problem with naturalism is the idea of the naturalist fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy says that is is a mistake to identify a moral claim, about what is good, with something that is natural. For example, you have sharp teeth. It is part of your nature to eat mean. Therefore is it good to eat meat  and wrong to just eat vegetables. You cannot draw the ‘wrongness’ because it is not empirical.
              • When we see an action such as murder, the wrongness of it does not come to our senses in the same way that we may observe the murderer’s actions. G E Moore says “Goodness resembles yellow more than it resembles a horse.” therefore saying that goodness is a simple idea; the concept of yellow cannot be broken down into parts or properties as you could with a horse. It cannot be described but you can point to many examples that you ‘just know’ are good.
          • A strength of intuitionism is that intuitionism is able to account for the widespread agreement on moral issues. When we discuss morality both within our own culture and by examining other cultures, we see very similar standards. Unjust killing is condemned and various other moral standards that lead to the well being of the group are valued.
          • A weakness of intuitionism is found in the suggestion of some intuitionists that ethics is similar to Maths. On one level this seems correct as our mathematical judgements are often intuitive; we just know that 2+3=5. Likewise our intuitive reaction to murder, that it is wrong, may be seen as similar.
            • This may overlook a major difference between the two judgements. The mathematical judgement is correct and known to be so by all rational people, it can also be illustrated by reference to concrete examples
              • We can add two things to three things and see that we really do have 5 things. It is not clear that this is the case with ethics.
                • It is not concrete and all rational people certainly do not agree on a complex topic such as euthanasia
    • Non-cognitivism
      • the idea that moral statements are not capable of being true or false
        • Emotivism
          • moral statements are expressions of our feelings
          • believe that objective right and wrong does not exist
          • When we call something right or wrong, we are describing our emotions towards that action
          • If everything is all about how we feel or what our emotions dictate, then how can we know anything at all? First taught by A.J Ayer; Ayer identifies 3 types of statements: analytic, synthetic and meaningless: He thinks that ethical and religious statements are meaningless as they cannot be proved Emotivism says that we have.
            • This theory agrees that there are no moral facts. It disagrees as to what we are doing when we make moral statements. We do not express truth or falsehood, we are explaining our emotional state. Sometimes called the Boo-Hurray theory of ethics, it reduces our moral statements to emotional reactions to issues.
        • Prescriptivism
          • the idea that moral statements are merely a desire to command others
          • This theory was first taught by R.M. Hare. Similar to emotivism, this theory agrees that there are no moral facts
          • Prescriptivist agree that there is no right or wrong.
          • However when we call something right and wrong, we are trying to prescribe our views to others. For example, the statement ‘abortion is wrong’ is actually a statement saying, ‘I don’t like abortion and neither should you’.
          • Unlike the imperatives of everyday life, we are attempting to universalise our prescribed course of action and argue that it is good or bad for everyone.
          • One strength of this theory attempts to express absolute imperatives. However there is no moral facts. When Hare attempts to develop this in later books it leads him to be effectively Utilitarian, and as with most non-cognitive theories.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Ethics resources »