Transcript Lesson 2 Meta Ethics - mrslh Philosophy & 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
A3 Sheet
Meta Ethics &
Definition
Cognitive
(annotate)
Non-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)
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’.
A3 Sheet
Meta Ethics &
Definition
Cognitive
(annotate)
Ethical
Naturalism
F H Bradley
Non-cognitive
(annotate)
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
Naturalism
Ethical Naturalism
This is the view that morals can be
defined or explained in natural terms, or
supported through the observation of the
world in science.
Ethics: a natural
factor of the
world around us?
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’.
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

Strengths:




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*
Is/Ought Fallacy

P1) Torture causes pain

C) We ought not to torture people

The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise

P1) Torture causes pain

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?
Desribe these pictures
What is
‘Yellow’?
Make a list of strengths and weaknesses of
intuitionism.

Strengths:






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
Annotate outside your boxes using key words
Non-cognitive
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