Exploring Meta-Ethics: Understanding Ethical Principles
Meta-ethics delves into the nature and validity of ethical statements, examining the meaning of right and wrong and the basis for moral claims. It explores distinctions between descriptive and normative ethics, cognitive and non-cognitive perspectives, and various ethical approaches such as naturalism, intuitionism, emotivism, and prescriptivism.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CEDAR - DCT Meta ethics Theological voluntarism 1. God as the origin and regulator of morality 2. Right or wrong are objective truths based on God s will 3. Moral goodness is achieved by complying with Divine Commands 4. Divine Commands are a requirement of God s omnipotence 5. Divine Command as an objective metaphysical foundation of morality Modified DCT Robert Adams why did he modify it? Solve the Euthyphro Dilemma God is omnibenevolent based on Biblical teachings Jesus Evil deeds can t be done
Normative vs. Meta Ethics Descriptive Ethics Meta Ethics Explores meaning and use of ethical language. What do we mean by: good, bad, right, wrong? E.G What does sex before marriage is wrong mean? Where do our ethical principles come from are we born with moral instincts or do they come from environment? Normative Ethics Asks what things are good and bad. Describes and compares different ways societies have answered moral questions. Can be called moral sociology. E.G What do Christian/ Muslim traditions believe about sex before marriage? What behaviour is right and wrong. Decides how people ought to act and how they make moral choices. These decisions may be from a group/ culture e.g. Christian tradition or may be based on a philosophical way of thinking. E.G Is sex before marriage right? E.g. Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Kant
Ethical Thought Meta-ethical approaches 1 d. Naturalism
Meta Ethics Cognitive Non Cognitive Objective Subjective Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism Ethical naturalism A. J. Ayer C.L Stevenson R. M. Hare G.E. Moore H. A. Pritchard W. D. Ross F. H. Bradley
Do you think ethical sentences can be true and false? YES NO You are a cognitivist You are a non-cognitivist Do you think we can know that an ethical statement is true through experience? Do you think ethical sentences are simply expressions of approval/disapproval? YES NO YES NO You are an emotivist (Ayer) You are a prescriptivist (Hare) You are a moral non-naturalist (an intuitionist). Choose from: Consequentialist intuitionism (Moore) Deontological intuitionism (Ross) You are a moral naturalist. Choose from: Utilitarianism Natural Moral Law Virtue Ethics
What is meta-ethics? Meta-ethics is the term used for discussion about the nature and validity of ethical statements. Meta-ethical statements are about what it means to claim that something is right or wrong; and the grounds on which it does so. True or false
1D. Meta-ethical approaches: Naturalism Candidates should be able to explain with clarity what Naturalism is (some useful information can be found in Ethical Studies 2nd edition, Chapter 6 by Robert Bowie (Nelson Thornes)); they must have a good understanding of Bradley s view on Naturalism and understand the challenges to meta-ethical theory of Naturalism. Candidates need to study the listed criticisms of Naturalism and have a clear knowledge and understanding of each criticism and why it is specifically damaging to the meta-ethical theory of Naturalism. All of the criticisms should be exemplified, in order to demonstrate understanding.
Introduction meanings of good Meanings of good What do we mean by a good guitar ? Or a good knife? What makes a good person ? Are the meanings of good here the same or different? Is there a prescriptive meaning of good a good person should do x ? Naturalists believe goodness can be measured and translated into facts (about pleasure, happiness, human flourishing).
You are already familiar with many of the key terms for this topic Match the word with its meaning A Cognitive B Realist C Empirical D Objective E Logical positivism F Proposition 1. has a separate existence and truth independent of personal feeling or situation. 2. the view that the world around us actually exists. 3. the view that for a statement to have meaning, it must be verifiable either by logic or by experience (aka verification principle) 4. A meaningful, declarative statement 5. knowable through experience or the senses. 6. based on evidence
Key terms Cognitive knowable through experience or the senses. Realist the view that the world around us actually exists. Empirical based on evidence Objective has a separate existence and truth independent of personal feeling or situation. Logical positivism the view that for a statement to have meaning, it must be verifiable either by logic or by experience (aka verification principle) Proposition a meaningful, declarative statement
Ethical naturalism naturalism Revision note Eduqas With this approach, goodness is something that exists and can be described. In other words here is some point at which you can explain an ethical statement in terms of a non-ethical one. What is good may be found in particular qualities, or in the ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or in something that fulfils its intended purpose. It claimed that ethical could be substantiated in the same way scientific ones were, using evidence and proofs. This means they treat ethical statements as verifiable or falsifiable e.g. It is raining outside For example Aristotle argued that everything as a final cause , the purpose for which it had been designed and fulfilling that purpose was what made it good . Good pen . . . This lead to the Natural Law approach (which is our next topic) So, if you consider that good can be explained in terms of some feature of the world or of human life, then you can count yourself as an ethical naturalist .
Ethical naturalism It is cognitive because it claims that ethical or moral claims can be known and proved. It is realist because it depends on a relationship with the real world which exists. It is empirical because it can be tested and proved by experience or experiment. It means that morality is objective because it has a relationship with something real and does not depend on feelings, preferences or situations. It means that ethical statements are propositions because they are a meaningful declaration of a fact about ethics.
Summary so far moral facts arent views or opinions, likes or dislikes Brief introduction to naturalism Ethical naturalism is the view that: 1. Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same natural terms that we would use to define mathematics or science. 2. Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the world as used in science. Moral truths are facts like numbers or chemical properties. e.g. the wrongness of murder of an innocent I also see the fact that it is despicable and wrong. The wrongness of the murder is as much a fact of the universe as the fact that a knife in the heart stops it. I see how the person was killed, who the killer is and what happened
Two examples of naturalists Theological naturalists God s will is the non-ethical element that is the basis of ethical conclusions St Thomas Aquinas Goodness is linked to the will of God as seen in nature. God s will defines morality murder is wrong because God commands against murder. Hedonic naturalists Pleasure or happiness is the non- ethical element that is the basis of ethical conclusions Bentham Humans have two sovereign masters pain and pleasure
Example from Bowie Stalin helped defeat Germany What type of statement is this? Can we prove it true or false? Stalin was an evil man What type of statement is this? Can we prove it true or false?
True or false Ethical Naturalism is just doing what comes naturally. Ethical Naturalism argues actions have objective moral properties Ethical Naturalism claims that ethical statements can be true or false, like mathematical statements (cognitivism) If an Ethical Naturalist claimed lying is wrong what would they mean? For example lying causes suffering and distress we can substitute the word wrong for some natural feature of lying which we claim is observable and cognitively provable. In this way ethical statement can be verified, for example, by observing whether lying really does cause human distress.
F. H. Bradley and the nature of ethical statements Ethical statements express propositions (meaningful, declarative statements) which are provable as true or false Moral judgement must involve a reference to what is real something in the natural world Bradley s argument is a form of cognitivism we can know objectively and test empirically ethical propositions e.g. honesty is good
He then considered Kants duty based ethics. This is the idea that we can logically work out what our duty is by thinking about questions like Would it logically make sense for everyone to behave in the same way? Once you know what your duty is, you must follow it without exception. This is an a priori and deontological system of ethics. Bradley liked the idea of duty, but did not like the idea that it was all worked out in the mind with no reference to the outside world. First, Bradley considered ethical Hedonism (Utilitarianism). This is a Naturalistic theory because it is based on evidence that humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Bradley liked the naturalistic basis of the theory but thought that the view that we are engaged in the pursuit of pleasure was too individualistic a view of humanity. He thought it could not fulfil us. Bradley combined the two by giving the idea of duty a reference point in the real world.
Naturalism F.H. Bradley (1846-1924) Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from self- realisation and from observing one s position in society. He rejected pure hedonism pleasure is too individualistic and provides no self-understanding He rejected Kant s idea of duty for the sake of duty It isn t based on the natural world and it doesn t guide us into morality or give human satisfaction. Bradley concluded that the better approach was to pursue self-realisation within the community: . . . We have found the end, we have found self realisation, duty and happiness in one yes, we have found ourselves, when we have found our station and its duties, our function as an organ of the social organisation Bradley, 1927 We need to learn from family, community, adopt the values of our society, know our station and its duties. The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Once your position in life is decided, you have a duty to perform the function of that station.
Example the Queen Her station in society is to be the constitutional leader of the country. This involves a neutral political position so she has a duty to keep her personal views out of public view. It involves a responsibility to ensure the country is properly governed in the interests of the people so she has a duty to be well-informed about what is going on and to question and advise politicians about what they are doing. It involves putting the interests of her people first so she has a duty to set aside personal concerns and act in the wider interests. It involves representing the country on the international stage so she has a duty to meet with world leaders, entertain and make them welcome, be polite and interested in everyone she meets, irrespective of personal feelings.
Naturalistic features of Bradleys ideas Ethical statements are propositions they are meaningful (they link to something real) Ethical statements are cognitive they can be known and proved by reference to facts about the world (our station and its duties) Ethical statements are empirical they can be tested through experience and experiment (do they fit in with our station and its duties?) Ethical statements are objective because they are based on external facts about our station in society, they are not dependent on personal feelings or opinions. Ethical statements are propositions because they are factual claims which can be shown to be true (if they fit with our station and its duties).
Tasks 1. Complete tasks 1, 2 and 3 in Booklet 2 2. Create a mini mind map on Bradley on page 3 Observe society family, community Bradley
Summary Ethical terms can be defined or explained using the same natural terms that we would use to defined mathematics or science Morals could be based on the same kind of observation of the world as used in scientific observation Naturalists come to their ethical conclusions using non-ethical evidence. In the case of the hedonists, pleasure is the non-ethical element F.H. Bradley believed that a moral perspective was determined from self- realisation and observing one s position in society The good of society is about hard work and obedience. Know your station and duty.
Can you think of any challenges? Regardless of whether a situation may have evidence to support that it is right (euthanasia) it may still break the law Right and wrong are subjective not objective Do ethical/ moral situations have evidence? Which evidence do we accept/ ignore?
Challenge Humes Law: Is Ought Problem (9) We can gather information about world around us through sense experience (empiricism). We cannot move from an objective factual statement about observations of the natural world to a subjective moral one. E.G forensic = a man is dead = verified (no heart beat etc.) but cannot find objective evidence of wrongness of murder. Hume believed cannot move from a fact X is Y or John is dead to Do X instead of Y or John is dead you ought not kill. No amount of facts are ever sufficient to imply ethical conclusion. Is does not imply ought. Hume believe moving from an is to an ought missed out the premise of sentiment
Open Question Argument Moore 1. What is good? 2. Creating pleasure is good? 3. Is pleasure good? An open question - Sometimes yes, sometimes no 4. Is everything that is pleasurable good for us and everything that cause pain bad?
Challenge: Naturalistic Fallacy Cannot identify goodness (ethical statement) with a natural quality statement about the world (non ethical statement) To claim moral statements can be verified or falsified = commits naturalistic fallacy. Cannot infer from a description of how the world is to how the world ought to be. Is are factual objective statements Ought are ethical statements of value. Cannot use facts to work out how we ought to act. G.E.Moore
Challenges to ethical naturalism - summary Hume s Law (the is-ought problem) Hume is pointing out that factual statements and moral statements are of a different kind Moore s Naturalistic Fallacy (moral language is indefinable) Open Question argument (moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties) Moore Explain Hume s argument for an is/ought gap What is an is ? What is a natural property and why do critics claim it can t apply to ethical statements? Question 5 How does Hume think moral statements and beliefs are derived? What is an ought ? What is an open question ? Explain Hume s argument about the missing premise What is the Naturalistic Fallacy? Yellow How are open questions used to challenge ethical naturalism? Give an example of an open question What is moral motivation?
Can you think of any strengths? Page 7 Nature is universal so supports argument that morals can be universally known - factual Objective It presents a solid guideline to follow in every situation. Based on what is natural everyone can experience it It unites subject and object and is better than Utilitarianism and Kantian Duty based ethics. Response to challenges (page 11) John Searle and James Rachels argue that in some cases you can derive an ought from an is: (P) You promised to pay me back my 5 (C) Therefore you ought to pay me back Searle argues that the institution of promise keeping is a natural fact about us (society), and there are normative implications for this. But perhaps there is a hidden evaluative premise you ought to keep promises (or the premise just is evaluative anyway).
Explain the meta-ethical approach of Naturalism. Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant points should be credited. [AO1 20] Naturalism is meta-ethical theory. It explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values and words. Naturalism concentrates on what morality itself is. Naturalism states that objective moral laws exist independently of human beings. Morality is not the result of human rational thought but is an independent reality. As morality is independent of reality, moral terms can be understood by analysing the natural world in the same way that scientific terms can be understood from analysis. Both ethical and non-ethical statements can both be regarded as cognitivist. Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore can be verified or falsified. Verified moral statements can then be accepted as objective truths in the same way that scientific statements are accepted as objective truths. As moral statements are objective truths they must also be universal i.e. apply to all in the same way. Candidates can refer to the work of F.H. Bradley on Naturalism. Bradley developed naturalism by arguing that ethical sentences express propositions. These propositions can be seen as true or false by considering objective features of the world. Therefore, meta- ethical statements can be seen in the same way as scientific terms. This is not a checklist, please remember to credit any valid alternatives. Key terms Meta-ethics Objective Cognitivist Proposition A statement that expresses a concept that could be true or false Verified
Evaluating Ethical Naturalism Whether ethical and non-ethical statements are the same. The extent to which ethical statements are not objective.
DIL Ethical and non-ethical statements are the same. Evaluate this view Write up plans on paper with explanations and examples Ethical and non-ethical statements are not the same Ethical and non-ethical statements are the same Critics complain that a good definition of "natural property" is problematic, but it would normally refer to a property which can be discovered by sense observation or experience, experiment, or through any of the available means of science, and this just does not apply in the case of ethical statements. Ethical statements are empirical facts like science and maths G.E. Moore Naturalist Fallacy Can t go from an ought to an is Ethical statements are based on observation and analysis e.g. Mill s Utilitarianism and happiness Hume ethical statements are not like non-ethical statements missing premise, motivation for morality is feelings and desires Can see the impact of moral actions e.g. lying Can t be tested and not empirical Ethical statements are opinions, views When I observe that something is wrong it is an objective fact of the universe Ethical statements are a priori matters of truth Rachel s can derive an ought from an is
Ethical statements are not objective. what can you use from the last plan? Ethical statements are objective Ethical statements are not objective Ethical Naturalism shows morality is objective and cognitive Hume ethical statements are based on moral motivation The variety of arguments about morality show they can t be objective Ethical Naturalism is based on observation/scientific testing e.g. Utilitarianism We can t distinguish between something actually being right and it merely seeming right to that person e.g. Inquiry into the natural world same as science and maths G.E. ethical statements don t have a natural property Naturalistic Fallacy Ethical statements are facts of nature and found universally James Rachels ethical naturalism begins by identifying goodness with satisfying our interests. Bradley ethical statements are objective based on observation of society
3. (b) The Naturalistic Fallacy illustrates that ethical language can never be objective. Evaluate this view. The Naturalistic Fallacy is commonly associated with G. E. Moore. He argued ethical terms like good and bad cannot be used in objective statements. This is because you cannot define ethical words like good and bad . Any attempt to find a definition will reduce / limit the idea of these terms. Therefore, ethical terms like good' and bad' cannot be used in objective statements because ethical terms are themselves are undefinable. Ethical statements cannot be objective because the terms used to express them are not themselves objective. Naturalism cannot illustrate ethical language as being objective because the words used in ethical statements cannot express ethical facts. The view that ethical language can never be objective is also supported by the meta-ethical theory of Emotivism. Emotivism states objective moral laws do not exist. Moral terms express personal emotional attitudes and not propositions that can be verified or falsified. Instead, ethical terms are just expressions of personal approval or disapproval. However, Naturalism states that objective moral laws do exist that are independent of human beings. Moral terms can be understood by analysing the natural world. Ethical words like 'good', 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong' are defined in the same way we define scientific terms, through observation of the natural world. Ethical statements are verified or falsified using scientific criteria. Ethical statements are cognitivist, and as a result, morality can be defined in factual terms. This would mean that ethical statements have an absolute nature that can be applied to all moral agents equally. The idea is supported by F.H. Bradley, he stated that ethical sentences express moral propositions. It is the objective features of the world around us that can be used to decide if these propositions are true or false. Intuitionism would also argue that objective ethical statements exist. However, objective moral laws can be discovered by using our minds in an intuitive way. Intuitive ability is a universal innate ability and therefore allows for objective moral values. Overall, candidates should engage with the debate and come to a substantiated evaluation regarding the issue raised.
