Meta-ethics

Page 1

Doesn't look at what is right and wrong, rather it looks at the language that we use to express morality.

The whole theory essential looks at what is meant when we use the words good/bad/right/wrong.

A large issue surrounding meta-ethics is the debate as to whether it is subjective or objective. This issue arises as some would argue that the word 'good' is completely objective, and therefore is meaningless and cannot be used in ethics.

In a similar way, there is a debate about whether meta-ethics is cognitive or non-cognitive. This means whether is can be proved or not.

Page 2

Key points

Doesn't

look at what is right and wrong, rather it looks at the language that we

use to express morality.

The

whole theory essential looks at what is meant when we use the words

good/bad/right/wrong.

A

large issue surrounding meta-ethics is the debate as to whether it is

subjective or objective. This issue arises as some would argue that the

word 'good' is completely objective, and therefore is meaningless and

cannot be used in ethics.

In a

similar way, there is a debate about whether meta-ethics is cognitive or

non-cognitive. This means whether is can be proved or not.

Meta-ethics

cannot properly be compared with other ethical theories. For example

Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are normative ethics, Ross (a

meta-ethicist) criticises Utilitarianism for being a single-factor theory.

Page 3

Intuitionism ideas for Meta-ethics

·

Intuitionism follows the idea that morality is

objective and cognitive, and argues that we know what goodness is through our

intuition.

·

G. E. Moore stated that we cannot give a definition

for the word ‘good’, he compared it to the word ‘yellow’, saying that we know

what yellow is, but we cannot define it. He simply put “Good is good, and that

is the end of the matter.”

·

Moore argue that we can work out what right and

wrong is by looking at what consequences the action has. If the consequence of

your instinct tells you that your action was right, then the action becomes

good. Good comes from consequence, not reason.

·

Moore’s version of intuitionism is teleological.

·

Moore criticized other ethicists for creating a

naturalistic fallacy when they try to define words such as good. By this Moore

means that just because something makes us happy, we cannot define it as good,

as it may not make everyone happy. This is a criticism of utilitarianism.

·

H. A. Pritchard said that it is our duty to work

out what is right and wrong and that we should use our intuition to work it

out.

·

A criticism is automatically raised, as Pritchard’s

ideas are more deontological than Moore’s, which version is right?

·

Pritchard stated that when there is a disagreement

about morality, one of the people’s moral thinking hasn’t fully developed.

However, again this raises issues such as: how can one develop moral thinking?

Is there a certain age? If someone is ‘wrong’ within moral conflict, does that

mean there is a conflict of duties?

·

W. D. Ross criticized utilitarianism and accepted

that moral duties do conflict. He attempted to resolve this by presenting a

series of duties called the ‘prima facie duties’, which he thought were the

most important, and must come first. They are as follows: 1. Keeping promises

2. Gratitude 3. Fairness 4. Benevolence 5. Non-maleficence 6. Self-improvement

7. Reparation for harm

Page 4

Strengths of intuitionism

·

Allows us to answer issues clearly and instantly.

·

Appeals to human nature, as we use intuition to

decide what is right or wrong.

·

Very simplistic (arguably too simplistic).

·

Avoids complex debates as it states that we cannot

define ‘good’.

Weaknesses of intuitionism

·

Normative ethics argues that we can give a

definition for words like ‘good’.

·

People’s intuitions are all different.

·

Most people see morality as subjective.

·

There is a great lack of empirical evidence for

intuitionism.

·

There are some situations that are too complex to

approach with intuitionism (therefore is lacks generalizability and cannot be

an ethical theory to use throughout all areas of your life).

·

Pritchard’s duties conflict.

·

Intuitionism has different causes, cultural and

social conditioning cause a persons ‘intuition’ to be influenced.

·

Intuitionism allows for ill use. People can argue

that their reason for doing seemingly unpleasant actions was due to their

‘intuition’. I.e. Murderers may argue that they acted the way they did because

their intuition told them to.

·

Moore’s ‘yellow’ analogy was criticized by

Nietzsche who argued that people see colours differently, what one person may

see as yellow, another may see as green. In a similar way, what one person may

see as good, another may see as something completely different. He called this

“Ethical colour-blindness”.

·

Macintyre (a virtue ethicist) simply said “The word

intuition is always a signal that something has gone badly wrong.”

·

Moore’s intuitionism is teleological, whereas

Ross’s is deontological-who is right?

Page 5

Emotivism ideas for Meta-ethics

·

Emotivism is a

non-cognitive theory that states that ethical language is simply screams of

emotion. It has become known as the ‘boo/hooray theory’.

·

Emotivism argues that

when we label murder as wrong, we are not saying that is immoral, we are simply

stating that we do not like the idea of murder.

·

A. J. Ayer was the first

to come up with emotivism. He argued that we are not judging morality or making

any normative truth claims, we are simply expressing our emotions.

·

Stevenson developed

Ayer’s argument further and argued that ethical language is reciprocal. When we

make ethical statements, we are inviting others to agree with us. For example,

when we state that murder is wrong, we are inviting those we have stated this

to, to agree with us.

·

Brandt, however,

disagrees with Stevenson’s ideas

about reciprocation and argues that when we use ethical language is it foolish

to presume that our language will have any sort of magnetic influence on

others.

Page 6

Strengths of emotivism

·

The subjective nature of emotivism allows all

opinions to be equally valid.

·

The theory is culturally aware, and acknowledges

that what is good or bad in one culture may not be in another.

·

Resolves the argument as to why moral disputes can

never be resolved.

·

It is fair to say that in childhood our moral

language is meant to be reciprocal.

Weaknesses of emotivism

·

Emotivism takes away our ability to reason

·

James Rachels called moral feelings convictions; he

said that emotivism wrongly compares stubbing one’s toe to making moral

statements.

·

Mel Thompson said, “You cannot reduce morality to a

set of cheers and boos.”

·

Peter Vardy said, “Emotivism is hot air and nothing

else.”

·

MacIntyre argues that emotivism wrongly places

child carers and paedophiles as equals.

Page 7

Prescriptivism

ideas for Meta-ethics

· R. M. Hare was the first to

propose prescriptivism as a non-cognitive theory.

· He argued that when we use

ethical language we are prescribing a course of action.

· Hare argued that “good” is an

action statement.

· Such things need to be

universalized i.e. when we state that murder is wrong, we are stating that no

one should murder, and universalizing it.

Page 8

Strengths

of prescriptivism

· It is a straightforward concept.

· It seems logical and realistic.

Often when we make moral judgements we are recommending courses of action.

· If moral commands can be

universalized, they are applied to everyone and therefore easy to follow.

· This solves the issue arisen from

emotivism that moral language is meaningless. Instead they are prescribed

actions.

Weaknesses

of prescriptivism

· Mackie argues that if

prescriptivism is culturally aware, then morality cannot be universal.

· Hare believed that there is no

right or wrong morality, i.e. Hitler’s universalized hatred for Jews was not

right or wrong.

· There is a disregard for logic

and reasoning that is behind moral statements.

· The logic behind Hare’s theory

means that any theory could be moral, no matter how ridiculous.

·

Removes the reason to follow any moral laws as they

are simply based on what people want you to do.

Page 9