Meta-Ethics

What do we mean when we use

ethical language?

                                  

Meta-Ethics

• Meta-ethics is concerned with what we mean when we use words like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘right’ ‘wrong’.

• It is not a normative system of ethics – its does not tell us what we can and can’t do

•

BackgroundThe philosopher David Hume was an empiricist: he argued that things can only be ‘real’ or ‘meaningful’ if they can be verified or proved by our five senses.

e.g.: I know oranges exist because I have seen, smelt, touched and tasted them

Ethical NaturalismA branch of ethics called Ethical

Naturalism developed from empiricism and the ideas of David Hume.

These ethicists argued that we observe the world around us and create moral theories to fit our observations.

An Example…

If we could prove, empirically and provide proof, that women make better parents than men (i.e. if this was a fact)

Then we could argue than men should not be single parents. (moral judgement)

Is-Ought Gap

• Many opponents of the naturalist position argue that we cannot make the leap between a FACT (is) and a MORAL JUDGEMENT (ought).

Naturalistic Fallacy

• This jump from an is to an ought, from fact to moral judgement is what critics of Naturalism call the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Is this really ethics?• Is this form of naturalism what we

would call ‘ethics’ or is it sociology, or psychology?

IntuitionismThe philosopher G.E. Moore

criticised naturalism. Instead he said we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things.

e.g. I don’t need to observe a murder to know that killing someone is wrong – I just know it is.

Continued ….

• When I make a moral decision I am simply choosing the outcome that will bring about these good things.

Simple v ComplexMoore argued that there are simple

and complex ideas.

Complex = ‘horse’ can be broken down into animal, mammal, quadraped, equine.

Simple = ‘yellow’ we can’t break it down any further.

Moral terms are simple

‘Good’‘Bad’‘Right’‘Wrong’

Are simple terms ‘Good’ is simply ‘good’.

Moral judgements cannot be proven

Moore further argued that moral judgements cannot be proven empirically.

We cannot observe pleasure and then say that goodness is pleasure.

W.D. Ross - IntuitionismRoss accepted Moore’s version of

ethics and also added that in any given situation moral duties or obligations become apparent.

These are called prima facie duties.Prima facie means ‘at first

appearance’

Prima Facie Duties• Ross listed the following as prima

facie duties:Keeping a promise, reparation for

harm done, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence

He acknowledged that this list might not be complete.

EmotivismA.J. Ayer was a Logical Positivist. He

believed that meaningful statements had to be verified either synthetically or analytically otherwise they are meaningless.

Analytic Statements

1 + 1 = 2All triangles have 3 sides

All spinsters are unmarried women

All of these statements are true in themselves – they are true by definition

Synthetic Statements

It’s snowingThere’s a squirrel in that tree

That chair is brown

These are all synthetic statements - they can be verified by our five senses.

So what are moral statements?

Moral statements cannot be verified synthetically or analytically. Therefore they are not truths or facts.

Moral statements are simply expressions of preference, attitude or feeling.

Emotivism – ‘boo’ ‘hurrah’

Moral statements come from our emotional responses to situations.

When I say murder is wrong I am saying ‘murder – boooooooo!’

When I say giving to charity is good I am saying ‘charity - hurrrrrah!’

C. L. Stevenson

Stevenson added to Ayer’s theory by asserting that when we make moral statements we are not only expressing our emotional response to a situation but we are also trying to persuade others to have the same emotional response.

The Removal of Reason

The removal of reason is one of the major criticisms of emotivism and intuitionism.

James Rachels argues that it is wrong of Ayer to make a connection between the ‘ouch’ response when you stub your toe and the ‘that’s wrong’ reaction when you see details of a murder on the news.

PrescriptivismMoral statements are objective.

They are both prescriptive and universal.

The only coherent way to behave morally is to act on judgements that you are prepared to universalise.

Prescriptivism• Moral statements are objective.

They are prescriptive and universal

The only way to act morally in any situation is to respond in a way that we would be prepared to say that EVERYONE should have to behave.

A summary of meta-ethics…

Our ethical journey so far …

ETHICS

NORMATIVE ETHICS

RELATIVE

META-ETHICS

ABSOLUTE

Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism

Virtue EthicsNatural Law

Thomas Aquinas Aristotle

G.E. MooreH.A. Pritchard

W.D. Ross

A.J. AyerC.L. Stevenson

R.M. Hare