Meta-ethics What is Meta Ethics?

Quick Check Meta-ethics Normative ethics Ethical cognitivism Ethical non-cognitivism Ethical realism Ethical anti-realism Moral objectivism

S A Burns What does ‘GOOD’ mean? There are many different definitions of the word good, which means that it is difficult to pinpoint a definition. Which definition of the word ‘GOOD’ is open to philosophical disagreement? Of moral excellence; upright. Because it relates to morality and what is ‘right’. It is the only definition that does not commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Answers to questions Subjectivist – situation ethics Consequentialist – Utilitarianism Absolutist – Kantian ethics

Meta Ethics & Definition A3 Sheet Meta Ethics & Definition Non-cognitive (annotate) Cognitive (annotate)

Cognitive or Non-Cognitive Ethical statements can be true or false Ethical words are meaningful because they have a factual basis Ethical words are subjective Ethical words are meaningful because they describe something Ethical statements are propositional Ethical statements are not like other statements of facts Ethical statements are not propositional Ethical statements have no factual basis.

Strengths of Cognitivism There seems to be moral absolutes: Murder is wrong, rape is wrong. It is good to give to charity… We seem to believe that moral statements can be true or false

Weaknesses of cognitivism Some would argue that moral statements cannot be known empirically People vary in their views about ethical matters, therefore it must be subjective.

Activity Complete the Cognitive vs Non-cognitive table

Decision TIME? Are you a cognitivist or a non-cognitivist?

The Naturalistic Fallacy Hume said that you cannot move from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ (Hume’s Fork) Murder is wrong – you ought not to do it. We cannot, he says, infer from a description of how the world is, to how it ought to be. GE Moore developed this argument and this is now known as the Naturalistic Fallacy and used something called the open question argument. Basically, GOOD cannot be defined. We cannot look at words and define them in REAL terms. It does not exist objectively. (See open question argument later)

Cognitive Theory 1 – Ethical Naturalism Meta-ethics Cognitive Theory 1 – Ethical Naturalism

Quick Check Write down 3 things that Hegel thought Write down 3 things that Bradley thought One quote from Bradley?

Ethical Naturalism It is possible to define what is morally right, good or bad by observing the world around you. ‘The European certainly is morally higher than a savage’ ‘If a man is to know what is right, he should have imbibed the spirit of his country, and its general and specific beliefs as to right and wrong.’ ‘To be moral is to live in accordance with the moral traditions of one’s country’ What is right and wrong is ‘self realisation within a community’.

Meta Ethics & Definition A3 Sheet Meta Ethics & Definition Non-cognitive (annotate) Cognitive (annotate) Ethical Naturalism F H Bradley

Strengths of Naturalism There seems to be moral absolutes: Murder is wrong, rape is wrong. It is good to give to charity… We seem to believe that moral statements can be true or false

Weaknesses of naturalism Some would argue that moral statements cannot be known empirically It commits the naturalistic fallacy

Ethical naturalism = bad idea This is the view that morals can be defined or explained in natural terms, or supported through the observation of the world in science. A famous ethical naturalist F.H. Bradley argued that goodness is a natural aspect of society, as people reach “self realisation within the community”.. The philosopher G.E. Moore criticised ethical naturalism. He believed that defining goodness in terms of natural facts is mistaken, referring to this as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’.. He says that good is ‘indefinable’. Ethics: a natural factor of the world around us? Moore: Ethical naturalism = bad idea

The ‘is-ought’ gap Moore built on the ideas of David Hume. A similar idea had previously been put forward by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume claimed that we cannot move logically from a statement about the way the world is to a statement about how we ought to act. This view is known as the ‘is-ought gap’ or Hume’s fork, because he made a clear cut between facts and ethics. The radical conclusion which this leads to is the idea that there is no such thing as a moral fact. Could that really be true?

In your own words Write a PESE(L) paragraph outlining the Naturalism P – Ethical Naturalists, like F H Bradley believe that we can derive ideas about what is right and wrong through our sense experience E – explain ethical naturalism and Bradley S - use a quote (and explain it) E – evaluate (do you think his ideas are good (point out why it might be) [no] so explain the naturalistic fallacy

Naturalism In a nutshell: moral truths are facts that can be proved by examining the empirical evidence: ‘Mother Theresa was a good woman’ ‘Euthanasia is right’ 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of this theory?

Strengths: Weaknesses: Can be verified empirically Non-negotiable, objectively true for all Fits with theories such as Utilitarianism and Moral Law Weaknesses: Rigid Commits the naturalistic fallacy* Still leaves us with an open ended question*

Criticising Naturalism - The Naturalistic Fallacy (Hume) Criticism Criticising Naturalism - The Naturalistic Fallacy (Hume) Moore, drawing on the Naturalistic Fallacy developed by Hume criticised naturalism saying you cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’

Is/Ought Fallacy Create your own argument P1) Torture causes pain C) We ought not to torture people The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise P2) Pain is wrong C) Torture is wrong Create your own argument

Open question criticism X is pleasurable, but is it good? Y has taken an innocent life, but is it bad?

Intuitionism Desribe these pictures

What is ‘Yellow’?

Intuitionism If I am asked what is good? My answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter. (Moore, Principia Ethica) We know what yellow is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow’.

Developments of Intuitionism H A Prichard Two types of thinking, reason and intuition. Reason looks at the facts, intuition decides what to do. He recognised that people have different morals, and suggested this is because some people have developed moral thinking further than others. Where there is a conflict of obligations, he simply says you have to decide which obligation is greater.

Developments of Intuitionism Ross Developed the ideas of Prichard. Prima Facie duties (duties of first sight) Make a list of strengths and weaknesses of intuitionism.

Strengths: Weaknesses: Morality is not dependent on the material world It explains why different societies share moral values (such as murder is wrong) It does not require a God as the source of absolute ethical principles It explains the idea that human beings seem to have an innate moral sense It allows for cultural/individual differences Weaknesses: Was developed to avoid the naturalistic fallacy, but the introduction of a non-empirical way of checking morality makes no more sense. How can we be sure that our intuitions are correct? How do we decide between our intuitions? There is no link between what is right and what a person ought to do J.L Mackie. Tells you what you should do, but does not expect you to do it

Work on your flow diagram.. Meta Ethics Cognitive Non-cognitive Annotate outside your boxes using key words

6 minutes In your own words, outline and evaluate one cognitivist theory. Alice and Hannah consider intuitionism Viv and Anna consider naturalism

Consider the following situations Give an naturalist understanding of the following statements: An evil man A good bomb A wrong choice A bad holiday