Meta-Ethics
- Created by: Bethan Hyde
- Created on: 26-03-14 12:46
View mindmap
- META-ETHICS
- What is meta-ethics?
- The study of underlying ethical ideas/ethical language
- What is the meaning of goodness (if any)??
- Can be contrasted with normative ethics (the attempt to work out which actions are right/wrong)
- Wittgenstein
- words resemble each other so we have a tendency to think that they all do the same thing
- The meaning of words are governed by the way we happen to ude them.-- isolated from context they become meaningless.
- Language isn't necessarily meaningless because we don't understand it
- words resemble each other so we have a tendency to think that they all do the same thing
- The study of underlying ethical ideas/ethical language
- Naturalism
- morals can be defined in natural terms/observation of the world in science.
- They develop there ideas with non-moral evidence
- E.g. if we look at pleasure defining goodness we may look at the evidence of pleasure and pain in actions
- COGNITIVIST
- Non-naturalism
- Bradley-- goodness is a natural aspect of society, people reach self realisation in their communities
- The problem of this there is a narrow account of it
- Moore--criticised it for being contradictory- he believed that defining goodness in terms of natural facts is wrong, referring to this as a 'naturalistic fallacy'
- Bradley-- goodness is a natural aspect of society, people reach self realisation in their communities
- The 'is ought' debate
- Hume-- we cannot move logically from a statement about the way the world 'IS' to a statement about how we 'OUGHT' to act.
- Naturalism
- morals can be defined in natural terms/observation of the world in science.
- They develop there ideas with non-moral evidence
- E.g. if we look at pleasure defining goodness we may look at the evidence of pleasure and pain in actions
- COGNITIVIST
- Moore and Intuitionism
- Strengths
- clear account of the meaning of good
- intuitionism is flexible -- it allows that our intuition may be wrong
- the 'naturalistic fallacy' seems persuasive
- Weaknesses
- Have failed to agree on what moral good is
- highly individualistic approach- does not give us concrete ethical behaviours - all it claims is that goodness is indefinable.
- Does not help us to resolve moral disputes- does not set out a clear decision making process.
- 'Good is good and that is the end of the matter'
- good is indefinable and a completely simple term
- compares this to yellow- yellow is a simple term- cannot be broken down any further we cannot explain it.
- Good is the same - it cannot be explained any further.
- compares this to yellow- yellow is a simple term- cannot be broken down any further we cannot explain it.
- we have an intuitive sense of right/wrong- instinct
- COGNITIVIST- ethical statements are about facts and empirical support.
- Strengths
- Emotivism
- Strengths
- based on observation of behaviour rather than a God or timeless forms.
- it is easy to think of ideas which link with emotivism
- Stevenson- able to explain complex meanings of ethical terms because he emphasises underlying beliefs and definitions.
- Weaknesses
- it removes reason from moral judgements
- in situations like terrible crimes it seems inadequate to say its 'just emotion'
- Vardy- an 'ethical non-theory' because it only discusses emotion and does not really deal with the idea of actions being ethical.
- morals can be purely understood as emotional responses
- Ayer- V Principle language is only meaningful when verifiable either analytically/synthetically
- Ayer did not think this applied to religious beleifs
- NON-COGNITIVIST-morals are simply personal choice
- NON-COGNITIVIST
- Strengths
- The nature of ethical language
- Ayer - ethical language expresses our feelings
- 'Boo-hooray' theory
- Emotivism
- Strengths
- based on observation of behaviour rather than a God or timeless forms.
- it is easy to think of ideas which link with emotivism
- Stevenson- able to explain complex meanings of ethical terms because he emphasises underlying beliefs and definitions.
- Weaknesses
- it removes reason from moral judgements
- in situations like terrible crimes it seems inadequate to say its 'just emotion'
- Vardy- an 'ethical non-theory' because it only discusses emotion and does not really deal with the idea of actions being ethical.
- morals can be purely understood as emotional responses
- Ayer- V Principle language is only meaningful when verifiable either analytically/synthetically
- Ayer did not think this applied to religious beleifs
- NON-COGNITIVIST-morals are simply personal choice
- NON-COGNITIVIST
- Strengths
- Ayer - ethical language expresses our feelings
- Stevenson
- similar to Ayer- he emphasised that attitudes are based on beliefs.
- e.g.. if I say 'capital punishment is wrong' then I have an attitude based on my beliefs.
- Not just different emotions like Ayer says but differences in underlying convictions and Values.
- similar to Ayer- he emphasised that attitudes are based on beliefs.
- Prescriptivsm
- HARE- goodness comes from the desire for others to have the same moral values as us.
- Arguesd for universalization - that if you state something is good then it must be good for everyone.
- 1. morals need to be about doing not thinking 2.ethical action has to be consistent 3. moral beliefs must be in harmony with others 4. cannot be a hypocrite
- NON-COGNITIVIST
- Ross- and intuitionism
- moral principles cannot be absolute- they can contradict one another
- he said that we have Prima Facie (at first appearance) duties:: such as fidelity and gratitude
- Intuition identifies our prima facie duties, but when they conflict we use our own judgement to decide where our duty/obligation lies.
- Moore and Intuitionism
- Strengths
- clear account of the meaning of good
- intuitionism is flexible -- it allows that our intuition may be wrong
- the 'naturalistic fallacy' seems persuasive
- Weaknesses
- Have failed to agree on what moral good is
- highly individualistic approach- does not give us concrete ethical behaviours - all it claims is that goodness is indefinable.
- Does not help us to resolve moral disputes- does not set out a clear decision making process.
- 'Good is good and that is the end of the matter'
- good is indefinable and a completely simple term
- compares this to yellow- yellow is a simple term- cannot be broken down any further we cannot explain it.
- Good is the same - it cannot be explained any further.
- compares this to yellow- yellow is a simple term- cannot be broken down any further we cannot explain it.
- we have an intuitive sense of right/wrong- instinct
- COGNITIVIST- ethical statements are about facts and empirical support.
- Strengths
- What is meta-ethics?
Comments
No comments have yet been made