1. Meta-ethics
What is Meta Ethics?

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

3. 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.

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

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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. Activity
Complete the Cognitive vs Non-cognitive table

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

11. 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)

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

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

14. 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’.

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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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?

20. 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

21. 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?

22. 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*

23. 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’

24. 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

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

26. Intuitionism
Desribe these pictures

27. What is ‘Yellow’?

28. 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’.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

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

33. 6 minutes
In your own words, outline and evaluate one cognitivist theory.
Alice and Hannah consider intuitionism
Viv and Anna consider naturalism

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