Transcript lesson 3. Naturalism_and_Intuitionism intro

Meta & normative ethics
LO: I will know what the similarities & differences
are between normative and meta ethics.
I will know what ethical naturalism is and the
arguments for and against it.
Explain the differences ans similarities between Normative
Ethics and Meta-Ethics.
Normative
Meta-Ethics
Recap:
What is Hume’s law? What did he observe?
Hume observed that when people are debating a
moral issue they begin with facts and slide into
conclusions that are normative; that is,
conclusions about how things ought to be. He
argued that no amount of facts taken alone can
ever be sufficient to imply a normative conclusion:
the is-ought fallacy.
Normative Ethics
What is Normative Ethics?
This is the system of ethics which tells us what we can
and can’t do. This examines how an ethical theory, such
as utilitarianism, can be applied to situations in the real
world.
The subject matter of Normative ethics is moral issues
themselves. E.g. issues like abortion, euthanasia and war
are the meat and drink of normative theorists. Normative
ethics examines these issues and generates theories
which attempt to identify criteria for choosing one act
over another in such situations.
Based on what has been discussed so far, can you list the
similarities and differences between Normative Ethics and
Meta Ethics. Use the handout from last lesson to help.
Meta & normative ethics
Meta ethics
Normative ethics
a)
Theory, concerned with
philosophy itself
a)
Reasons behind decisions
in ethical situations
b)
Beyond the words to
derive meaning
b)
Makes sense of terms and
concepts from ethical
theories
c)
Guide to moral behaviour
Similarities &
differences
Similarities
Differences
a)
Understanding words &
concepts
a)
Meta is theoretical,
normative is a guide to
behaviour
b)
Understanding why we
use certain words
b)
c)
Reasons behind decisions
Meta is more rigid than
normative. There is less
manoeuvrability in
defining words, compared
to applying ethical
theories.
c)
Meta is more philosophical
‘Can ethical statements be proved
true or false?’
COGNITIVIST (ETHICAL
NATURALIST)
NON-COGNITIVIST
Intro to ARGUMENTS
Cognitivism
Naturalism: Moral truths are facts – can be proved.
Intuitionism: What is good? Cannot be described, like
‘yellow’, we intuitively know what good is.
TASK: try to define the word ‘yellow’,
Non-cognitivism
Emotivism: Ayer – Boo–Hurrah. This is really good to act
out in the classroom. Divide the class in half, one half is
against abortion the other is in favour of it. Ask students to
just say ‘it is right’ or ‘it is wrong’.
It will quickly turn into a shouting match which is what Ayer
suggested. Stevenson – expression of attitudes based on
beliefs and a persuasive argument intended to influence
others.
Prescriptivism: Hare – moral statements are commands.
Good is what can be universalised.
Ask students to try to think of which laws could be
universalised, do they all think of the same ideas? If not,
this shows a weakness in the theory.