Meta ethics

META ETHICS

Normative ethics: I should act so I can …, trying o give you actual guidelines on how to behave 

Eg. Al the ethical theories we’ve looked at 

Meta-eithics seek to take a step back and analysis the langauge so we agree on what good is before we can actually goi anywhere with it and be good.  

 

 

Meta-ethics:

Moral realism: ethical sentences express propositions, and these are objectively true, independently of human opinions. 

Statements are true. 

Good

+          } objective, they are set. 

Bad     

 

Anti-realism: there are no objective moral facts, all ethics are simply feelings or beliefs.

Statements are just your opinion.  

 

Ethical naturalism: there are objective moral properties. These are reduced to non-ethical properties, such as wants, desires or needs. 

 

Ethical non-naturalism: ethical statements cannot be reduced to non-ethical statements. You cannot define ‘good’ as ‘pleasant’. Is it indefinable: sentances containing the word ‘good’ cannot be defined with sentances without the word ;’good’ in them.  

Naturalism (moral realism)

Ethics are objective, obvious & constrained within nature. (Seen in facts like murder is usually painful etc)

Emotivism:

A.J. Ayer: 

‘All ethical statements are an *********** of emotion.’

You are just expressing your opinion when you say an ethical statement 

Eg. If you say ‘abortion is wrong’ you are actually saying ‘I think abortion is wrong’

‘Yah-Boo’ theory: 

• When I provide an ethical statement, is it merely me saying my emotions on the topic. 
• It is as if I am saying ‘Yah (yes)’ to … or ‘Boo (no)’ to …
• I am not saying anything factual or meaningful. It cannot be empirically proven. 

 

Naturalistic fallacy: ‘is’, ‘ought’- (Hume) (I think) 

Cannot be objective, bc someone could disagree with your moral thinking (which you claim is objective) and genuinely mean it. 

Louis Pojman:

• If you hold 1 truth which you will not break, you are absolutist (+ objective?)

 

Realism: 

• Intuitionism 

 

Anti-realism: 

• Emotivism, prescriptivism Anti realism

 

In reality there are no objective moral truths, but within that there are human societies, within which there are objective moral truths, eg do not murder is a universal law for everyone and will never change. And in England for example, an objective law is **** is illegal. But, if it can change (laws can change) then it cannot be truly objective, it is subjective to change. 

Prescriptivist:

Being kind is good is actuary you should be kind

Racism is bad= I think racism is bad and you should to

R.M HARE- sought to make moral statements objective- moral statements have both prescriptive and universal quality- argued the purpose of ethical language was not to express ones own opinion or attitude but to guide behaviour/ “prescribe” 

 

A type of prescriptive ethics is one which seeks to prescribe certain behaviour- eg Kant, Nat law etc 

Intuitionism:

Argue: Moral statements are objective 

Overtime our intuition gets better- why we don’t sacrifice babies anymore etc

No opinion has changed you are just getting closer to what is…