01 4 Ethical Language 4.1 Meta-Ethics

Evaluate the strengths and problems of these types of ethical language 4.1 Meta-Ethics LO Explore the notion of cognitive and non- cognitive uses of language in its various forms. Use of realism and anti-realism Evaluate the strengths and problems of these types of ethical language

What is morality? What do we mean when we say that a thing or action is good, bad, right or wrong? What is the meaning of moral terms or judgements? ‘X is good or ‘good’ is X. What is the nature of moral judgement? How many moral judgements be supported or defended? How can we know whether and when an action is right or wrong? Can ethical language have any meaning?

” Killing a person is wrong“ 1. What would an absolutist say? (Absolutists = Natural Law/Kant) 2. What would a relativist say? (Relativists = Utilitarianism/Situation Ethics

Key Terms Absolutism = the view that morals are fixed, unchanging truths that everyone should always follow. Relativism = the view that moral truths are not fixed and are not absolute. What is right changes according to the individual, the situation, the culture, the time and the place. Meta-ethics = looks at the language we use to express morality. Meta- ethics is all about language, and asks what good/bad/right/wrong actually mean as words. You can’t compare it to normative ethical theories because unlike them it does not try to distinguish right from wrong. A significant issue surrounding meta-ethics is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective. Some will argue that if 'good' has no objective meaning then it is meaningless, and should not be used in ethics. Another issue is whether meta-ethics is cognitive (able to be proved) or non-cognitive (not able to be proved).

Is killing someone wrong? What would our ethicists say? What do we mean by cognitivist when discussing meta-ethics? What do we mean by non-cognitivist when discussing meta-ethics?

Key Terms - For your notes: Cognitivism Non-cognitivism

Key Terms - For your notes: Cognitivism Cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral judgements are propositions which are ‘truth- apt’– they are statements that can be considered true or false. Non-cognitivism Non-cognitivism is the view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (statements) so therefore they cannot be true or false.

Cognitivism So when we say “Stealing is wrong” for example, we are offering a statement that can be considered true or false. It doesn’t matter whether it IS true or false, obviously this is open for debate, just that it’s one or the other. Non-cognitivism For non-cognitivists “Stealing is wrong” does not express a proposition. Instead, they might argue it expresses an emotive attitude, or a prescription to behave in a certain way, but crucially they cannot be considered to be true or false.

Cognitivism Cognitivism holds that concepts like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist and moral concepts are real things. Cognitive ethics is objective; based on absolute facts. Moral concepts are universal; sensory experiences can verify them but they cannot be reduced to a formula, such as Natural Law or the greatest happiness for the greatest number. What is ‘good’ just is. Human intuition or experience discovers it. Cognitivists believe that ethical facts exist and can be known. Cognitivists believes that because moral concepts are real we are able to say whether the statement ‘murder is bad’ is true or false. Cognitivists argue that statements of opinion are based on observation or experience data. Moral, aesthetic and common sense statements of opinion are true or false insofar as they can be verified by observation or experience. Words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have meaning because they can be proved true or false. Cognitivist theories include: Naturalism and Intuitionism. According to ethical naturalism, the statement ‘murder is bad’ can be verified by observing the act of murder and its consequences. For intuitionism, no such analysis is needed; we know murder is bad through our intuition.

Non-cognitivism Non-cognitivism says that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no actual existence and that morality is relative – it is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. The words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no intrinsic value. It is up to the individual or groups of people to give meaning to such words. They believe when you say ‘murder is bad’ you are expressing an opinion that killing someone is not intrinsically bad but it is disgusting to you. Therefore, a non-cognitivist would not be able to say that the statement ‘murder is bad’ is either true or false, because morality is a matter of opinion. If things are matters of opinion, then it is impossible to verify whether that opinion is true or false; it just is. Words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no meaning because they cannot be proved true or false. However this does not devalue moral statements. It simply recognises that subjective opinions are valuable in themselves. Moral statements are not devalued because they are opinions – they are much more likely to be devalued by the assertion that they are objective truths, which cannot be proven one way or another. Non-cognitivist theories include: Emotivism. According to emotivism, when we would say ‘murder is bad’ we are expressing our feelings towards murder.

Which key term is this definition about? It states that concepts like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist and moral concepts are real things. It is objective; based on facts. Cognitivism On your mini whiteboard

Which key term is this definition about? It states that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no actual existence and that morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. Non-cognitivism On your mini whiteboard

Which key term is this definition about? Words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have meaning because they can be proved true or false. Cognitivism On your mini whiteboard

Which key term is this definition about? Words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no meaning because they cannot be proved true or false. Non-cognitivism On your mini whiteboard

Can you define this key term? Cognitivism It states that concepts like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist and moral concepts are real things. It is objective; based on facts. On your mini whiteboard

Can you define this key term? Non-cognitivism It states that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ have no actual existence and that morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. On your mini whiteboard

Is killing someone wrong? What would our ethicists say? What do we mean by cognitivist when discussing meta-ethics? What do we mean by non-cognitivist when discussing meta-ethics?

” Killing a person is wrong“ What would a Cognitivist say? (Naturalism/Intuitionism) 2. What would a Non-cognitivist say? (Emotivism)

Contested term Realists: Anti-realists: Beauty Beautiful things out there in the world. Our response to objects that we have been socially conditioned to call ‘beautiful. Red The property of redness in the world. A mental image or idea of redness. Electron A quantum object in the world which has a negative electrical charge. A term which has a place in a complex theoretical system that usefully explains certain phenomena witnessed in labs. Wrong…

Key Terms 2 - For your notes: Moral realism Moral realists believe that in some sense moral terms refer to something real in the world, for example pleasure, or happiness, or utility, or the moral law or God’s command. So, from a realist position, moral laws can be discovered. Moral anti-realism Moral anti-realists believe that moral terms do not refer to anything real or the in world, but are something else entirely – for example your personal attitude towards something. In this sense then, moral laws are not something we can discover in the world.

What might a moral realist say that ‘wrong’ refers to?

Contested term Realists: Anti-realists: Beauty Beautiful things out there in the world Our response to objects that we have been socially conditioned to call ‘beautiful Red The property of redness in the world A mental image or idea of redness Electron A quantum object in the world which has a negative electrical charge A term which has a place in a complex theoretical system that usefully explains certain phenomena witnessed in labs Wrong… The extent to which an action produces pain and suffering in the world. An expression of our disapproval of certain types of action

Can you define what is meant by the following terms? Recap Can you define what is meant by the following terms? Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism Realism Anti-Realism Statements that are truth-apt they could be true or false. Sentences that can’t be considered true or false. Language that refers to things in the real world Language that doesn’t refer to anything in the real world

Absolutism ‘Torturing children, rape and murder are always wrong’. In ethical absolute is a moral command or prohibition that is true all time, in all places and in all situations. Absolutists hold that some things are wrong from an objective point of view, not just wrong from your or my perspective. The Middle Ages principle; ‘Follow the good and avoid the evil’ expressed an absolute perspective….. Do what is objectively good and avoid what is objectively bad. In ethical absolutism, things that are right or wrong can’t change according to the culture in which you live. They aren’t affected by justifying circumstances. They don’t depend on situation. So …. Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong, which means wrong in themselves. The act itself breaks a moral rule. The thing is not made wrong by the situation or result it causes.

Relativism a). ‘Abortion is wrong’ b). ‘Abortion is right’ X. ‘Polygamy is wrong’ Y. Polygamy is right There is no truth in anything beyond the way it seems. There’s no objective knowledge, because all knowledge depends on the perceptions of the person. There’s no objective truth. Truth is only true for you, or true for me. Man is the measure of all things. Things are good or bad relative to our perspective. A sick person eating food may find horrible, while a healthy person eating the same food will find it delicious. Cultural relativism Moral rules are expressions of the culture and nothing more. There’s is no set of moral rules that applies to all. There is nothing absolute or universal about morality. The theory ‘do as Romans do’ directly challenges ethical absolutism.

Absolutism or Relativism? Believes that there are moral commands that are true for all time, in all places and in all situations Things are right or wrong and cannot change Things are good or bad depending on the circumstances of the situation Torturing children, rape and murder are always wrong. They don’t change according to the culture in which you live. There are no values that cut across all cultures and peoples Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong, which means wrong in themselves There is no objective knowledge, because all knowledge depends on the perception of the person. Similarly, there is no objective truth; truth is only true for you, or true for me There isn’t just one set of moral that everyone agrees with or follows

Absolutism or Relativism? Believes that there are moral commands that are true for all time, in all places and in all situations Things are right or wrong and cannot change Things are good or bad depending on the circumstances of the situation Torturing children, rape and murder are always wrong. They don’t change according to the culture in which you live. There are no values that cut across all cultures and peoples Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong, which means wrong in themselves There is no objective knowledge, because all knowledge depends on the perception of the person. Similarly, there is no objective truth; truth is only true for you, or true for me There isn’t just one set of moral that everyone agrees with or follows