AS Religious Ethics AS Religious Ethics RevisionRevision

Meta-EthicsMeta-Ethics

Three Types of Ethics

Meta-EthicsMeta-Ethics – examines the language of ethics and moral reasoning.

Normative EthicsNormative Ethics – seeks to set the content (required actions) of moral behaviour.

Descriptive EthicsDescriptive Ethics – statistics and ethical facts

Meta - Ethics

Examines ethical language such as ‘good’, ‘ought’ and ‘wrong’. In other words, what do we mean when we call something ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

Normative EthicsNormative Ethics

Tries to provide a guide for moral behaviour. In seeks to answer the question “What ought I do in situation x?” The moral theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative ethics.

BACKGROUND TO META-ETHICSBACKGROUND TO META-ETHICS

A essential factor in ethical problems is whether they are either

SUBJECTIVE or

OBJECTIVE

Are they based onAre they based on

personal opinion personal opinion

or onor on external facts?external facts?

““The 2003-2004 Norwich The 2003-2004 Norwich City side is the best of all City side is the best of all

time.”time.”Subjective (an OPINION – that can’t Subjective (an OPINION – that can’t

be tested)be tested)

““The sun is shining”The sun is shining” Objective (a FACT – that can be Objective (a FACT – that can be

tested)tested)

Some technical terms

If a thing is objective, then it is

COGNITIVE it can be known and

proved

If a thing is subjective, then it is

NON-COGNITIVE

It can’t be proven

With it so far?

Stop chatting at the back and pay attention to me!

Cognitive ethical language

Makes propositions that (it claims) can

be known to be either true or false.

SUCH AS

Killing people is wrong

Be faithful to your partner

Never tell a lie

Why?

A cognivtist would claim that we can ‘prove’ such statements to be true.

TASK:TASK:

How could you ‘prove’ that these things are bad, immoral, wicked or

evil?

Killing people is wrong

Be faithful to your partner

Never tell a lie

Example

Kant was a COGNITIVECOGNITIVE ethicist

WHY?WHY?

Because he believed that you could ‘prove’ how people ought to behave.

HOW?HOW?

The Good Will, reason, & universalisablity

On the other hand

Non-cognitive ethical language

Claims that in ethics we aren’t dealing with things that are resolved by ascertaining the validity or falsification of a statement.

To put it another way

YOU CAN’T PROVE IT!YOU CAN’T PROVE IT!

Meta-ethics divides into two parts:

1.1. COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORYCOGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORY

2.2. NON-COGNITIVIST ETHICAL NON-COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORYTHEORY

COGNITIVIST ETHICAL COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORYTHEORY

ETHICAL NATURALISM ETHICAL NATURALISM

INTUITIONISM

NON-COGNITIVIST NON-COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORYETHICAL THEORY

LOGICAL POSITIVISTS

EMOTIVISM

PRESCRIPTIVISM PRESCRIPTIVISM

ETHICAL NATURALISM Treats ethical statements just the same as non-ethical statement – propositions that can be proved or disproved.For example:The statement “acid turns litmus paper red” is true because it can be established using evidence.The statement “murder is wrong” is also true. If we look at the evidence, we see that generally murder makes people unhappy, it is wrong to make people unhappy therefore murder is wrong.

CRITICISM OF ETHICAL NATURALISM

G. E. Moore (Principa Ethica)G. E. Moore (Principa Ethica)

The Naturalistic Fallacy The Naturalistic Fallacy

Moral statements can’t be verified Moral statements can’t be verified (proved) using empirical evidence (proved) using empirical evidence

You can’t turn an ‘is’ – a fact – into You can’t turn an ‘is’ – a fact – into an ‘ought’ – what we ought to doan ‘ought’ – what we ought to do

Example

The world ISIS in a terrible state – pollution so bad budgies are falling off their perches, rain forests the size of Wales disappear every week just to keep Yanks in burgers, nuclear waste being left all over the place – any terrorist could get their hands on it!

The world ISIS in such a terrible state, we OUGHTOUGHT to do something about it

Therefore pollution, deforestation & nuclear waste AREARE WRONG (or evil or bad – pick your own moral term!) and we OUGHTOUGHT to do something about them.

G. E. Moore’s Intuitionism

In place of Ethical Naturalism, Moore proposed

INTUITIONISM.INTUITIONISM.

He said that ‘good’ is indefinable:

 

“We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but we cannot actually define it.”

For Moore,For Moore,

‘Good’ is indefinable;indefinable;

there are objective moral truths;

the basic moral truths are self evident to the mature mind.

Henry Sidgewick & Intuitionism

Believed that there were three self-evident moral truths or principles:Prudence – defer an immediate pleasure for a greater pleasure in the future (e.g. saving up money)Justice – you should not put your own interests in front of those of the communityBenevolence – care for those in need

F. H. Bradley & Intuitionism

We discover moral obligation from society. Moral obligation is called the concrete universal. Moral activity = find your position in society and do your duties. “Don’t question society”

H. A. Prichard & Intuitionism

Two types of thinking:

General thinkingGeneral thinking – a moral decision is made relative to the situation at hand

Moral thinkingMoral thinking – rested on immediate intuition and not reason – this is what indicates the right thing to do.

H. A. Prichard (Cont)

Some have clearer moral intuition that others because their moral thinking has been further developed. This accounts for differences in moral actions.

BUT, he didn’t tell us how to ascertain who has the clearer intuition.

W. D. Ross & Intuition

Greatly influenced by Moore and Prichard

ButBut went further and said:‘RightRight’ and ‘obligatory’ are as indefinable as ‘goodgood’

W. D. Ross (Cont)

There are two elements in determining what is right:

The factual situation

How that situation is viewed

W. D. Ross (Cont)

The right (good) act is an act which the

agent thinks is right in the situation as

the agent thinks it is

W. D. Ross (Cont)

WHY?Because the subjective evaluation of the situation leads to a direct form of individual intuition to access right conduct.

 

But!

Aquinas has already said this centuries earlier in a slightly different form. He said

“Let conscience be your guide”

Which leads us very neatly into. . . . . . . .

CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM

How can we be sure that intuitions are correct?

Are they just a gut feeling?

Voice of God? Conscience?

Neurosis? Paranoia?

CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM

People who use intuitionintuition and those who use reasonreason may reach different conclusions and there is no obvious way to resolve their differences.

CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM

Intuited knowledge owes more to social background than any firm basis for morality ~ at least according to Bradley.

CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM

According to the logical positivists, since individuals’ intuitions cannot be tested, they are

meaningless.

And now for something completely different. . .

INTRODUCING (for your pleasure and amusement) . . .

THE LOGICAL POSITIVISTS

NON COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORIES

Rejected the idea of certain knowledge about good and bad

Statements only have meaning if they can be tested

Moral statements cannot be tested so logically therefore, they have no meaning

EMOTIVISM A. J. Ayer‘Boo Hurrah Theory’ Moral statements only express personal feelings ‘Abortion is wrong” = ‘I don’t like abortion.’moral statements are arbitrary and meaningless.

EMOTIVISMC. L. Stevenson modified Ayer’s ideas. Ethical statements = expressions of attitude and opinion Not arbitrary BUT based on beliefs about the world, the ways it should work, worldly experiences and what we want it to be.

CRITICISMS OF EMOTIVISM

How can you judge How can you judge between two people’s between two people’s moral opinions?moral opinions?

Isn’t it just the same Isn’t it just the same as relativism?as relativism?

CRITICISMS OF EMOTIVISM

It prescribes complete freedom of action because everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Everyone is free to do what they choose, regardless of the opinion of others.

PRESCRIPTIVISM

R. H. Hare

agrees with Ayer - moral statements are expressions of opinion But also prescribing our opinions to others.“Murder is wrong” = “You ought not to murder and neither should I”

CRITICISMS OF PRESCRIPTIVISM

Moral judgements are founded on prescriptions and have no claim to objective truth.

In other words

We agree the rules and try and stick to them (a sort or ethical gentleman’s agreement!)

CRITICISMS OF PRESCRIPTIVISM

Doesn’t specify why I should follow your rules rather than mine!

(And what if I don’t like the rules - why should I follow them at all - lacks ethical authority!)

The End

Now

just pass

the exam!