META-ETHICS

1. META-ETHICS

2. Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture • Abortion • Gay marriage • Capital punishment • Genetically modified food • Legalization of marijuana

3. Moral disagreement seems to be even more widespread between different cultures (& historical periods) • Slavery • Cannibalism • Female “circumcision” • The use of terrorism for political ends…

4. Suttee (or Sati)

5. People argue about moral issues • In a moral argument, we often give people reasons aimed at persuading them that our own position is correct and that their position is incorrect. • A different sort of case: chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream Chocolate ice cream tastes better Nope, it’s vanilla all the way

6. Intervention • We recognize that some moral issues are very complex and difficult, and that our view on those issues might be mistaken. • On other issues, we are confident that our own views are correct and that people who do not share our views are mistaken. Sometimes we are even prepared to try to stop people acting on moral views that we take to be mistaken. • Examples: suttee & the use of terrorism

7. Normative Ethics vs. Meta- or Critical Ethics • Normative Ethics is the branch of philosophical inquiry that tries to answer substantive moral questions like: • Should abortion be legal? • Should capital punishment be abolished? • Is gay sex immoral?

8. Meta-ethics • Meta- or Critical Ethics does not try to resolve moral disputes or to say what we should do. Rather, it tries to answer questions like: • What do moral claims mean? • How can moral claims be justified? • Are there correct and incorrect (true & false) answers to moral questions? If so, how is this possible? • Is there one set of moral principles that everyone should follow? Or do different principles apply to people in different cultures?

9. Ethical Language • Before anyone can begin to establish what is good or bad moral behaviour, we need to establish if we can define these words. • The branch of moral philosophy which deals with this is meta-ethics – which asks what do words such as good/ bad/ right/ wrong actually mean.

10. Good/ Ought • The word good has many meanings and most of them are not used in a moral context: e.g. My computer is good – it fulfils the task I want it to. • In the same way ‘ought’ is used in different contexts: e.g. Teachers ‘ought’ to be kind to their students.

11. Subjective/ Objective • A key factor in all of this is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective. • Are they based on personal preference or on external facts? • If moral values are objective then they are true for everyone. • If moral values are subjective then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.

12. Cognitive/ Non-Cognitive • If morality is objective then it is also cognitive – cognitive language deals with making propositions about things which can be known and therefore proved true or false = Propositional View. • If morality is subjective then it is also non-cognitive – it deals with matters which are not simply resolved by proving they are true or false = Non-Propositional view.

13. Subjective/ Objective • A key factor in all of this is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective. • Are they based on personal preference or on external facts? • If moral values are objective then they are true for everyone. • If moral values are subjective then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.

14. Meaning? • One main question within meta-ethics is “Can ethical language have any meaning?” • If we are unclear about the nature and meaning of words, how can we make authoritative claims about how people should act?

15. Our Central question: Is Morality “Objective”? • About 65 million years ago an asteroid collided with the earth, and this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. • There is a prime number between 123,456 and 654,321. • All the shots fired at John F. Kennedy the day he was killed were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. • Saddam Hussein will be executed before Jan. 1, 2009. • On Wednesday, 5th of November, 2008, Mr. Thirkill wore odd socks during his Philosophy class.

16. “Objective” • Note two things about these sentences: • Each of these sentences is either true or false. • The truth or falsity of these sentences does not depend at all on who makes the claim, when the claim is made or where the claim is made. • When a sentence has these properties, we’ll say that it makes an objective claim.

17. Some sentences are not “objective” • Example of a sentence that isn’t true or false: • “Please pass the ketchup.” • “Go to hell!”

18. Some sentences are not “objective” • Examples of a sentences whose truth depends on who makes them or when / where they are made: • “I’m the oldest person in this room.” • “It’s raining.” I’m the oldest I’m the oldest

19. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • The Appeal: It would make sense of the fact that we often talk and act as though moral claims are correct or incorrect, and that we sometimes seem to think that people (including people in different cultures) have moral views which are mistaken. Capital punishment is right (in some cases). No! Capital punishment is always wrong.

20. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • The Puzzles • Metaphysics: If some moral claims are true, then there must be facts that make them true. What could these facts possibly be?

21. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • Epistemology: How can we know which moral claims are true? Is abortion morally permissible?

22. Moral Objectivity and the Meaning of Moral Claims • To determine whether morality is objective we need to have a clear account of what moral claims mean. • Thus one of the central issues in meta-ethics – and the one we will focus on – is: What do moral claims mean? • “Abortion is morally wrong” means…??

23. God & Morality • The Supernaturalist Theory of the Meaning of Moral Claims (also known as “The Divine Command Theory) • The Theory: “x is morally wrong” means “God disapproves of x” (or “God forbids x”). “x is morally right” means “God approves of x” (or “God commands x”)

24. Example of the Supernaturalist theory Don’t perform abortions “Abortion is wrong” =

25. Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory • Offers answers to the metaphysical and epistemological puzzles Don’t perform abortions

26. Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory (cont’d) • Makes moral claims objective. • Offers a clear motivation to be moral.

27. Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory • It does not capture the meaning of moral claims made by atheists. • Question: What does the theory entail if God does not exist? • Even many theists are more certain about some moral claims than they are about God’s existence.

28. Plato’s argument against the Supernaturalist Theory • Plato’s crucial distinction: Does God disapprove of actions because they are wrong? Or are they wrong because God disapproves of them? • Two analogies: • The brilliant mathematician: Does she think the theorem is true because it is? Or is it true because she thinks it is? • The referendum: Did the voters vote against raising property taxes because raising property taxes is illegal, or is raising property taxes illegal because the voters voted against it?

29. Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d) • If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then there is nothing intrinsically right in what God commands or intrinsically wrong in what He prohibits. These actions would not be right or wrong if He had not prohibited them. • So God’s commands are morally arbitrary.

30. Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d) Thou shalt commit murder; thou shalt not tell the truth • Thus it is conceivable that God might have decided to command other things and prohibit other things. • So, according to the Supernaturalist theory: • Murder could have been morally right, and • Honesty could have been morally wrong.

31. Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d) • But it seems absurd to say that God might have commanded us to steal, murder & rape. He could not have commanded us to do these things because • they are wrong, • being omniscient, He knows they are wrong, and • being morally good, He would not command us to do what is morally wrong. • If this is right, then it is not God’s commands that makes things right or wrong – though these commands may be an important source of our knowledge of what is right & wrong. (Compare with the mathematician.)

32. Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d) • Another problem: If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then we are not praising God when we say that He is morally good. We are simply saying that God approves of what God approves of. “x is morally right” “God approves of x” If = “God approves of things that are morally right” “God approves of things that God approves of” Then =

33. Simple Subjectivism • The Theory: “x is morally wrong” means “I disapprove of x”. “x is morally right” means “I approve of x”. Capital punishment is right (in some cases). In some situations, I approve of capital punishment. =

34. Simple Subjectivism and the objectivity of moral claims • If simple subjectivism is true, then moral claims are not objective • They are true or false • But the same ethical statement can be true if made by one person and false if made by another person.

35. Objections to simple subjectivism • If it were true, then just about all moral disagreement would be an illusion. Abortion is morally permissible Abortion is morally wrong I don’t disapprove of abortion I disapprove of abortion =

36. Objections to simple subjectivism • If it were true, then we could not be wrong when we make (sincere) moral judgments. I don’t disapprove of killing Jews. Killing Jews is morally OK. FALSE? TRUE

37. Cultural Relativism • Eskimos • Are polygamous • Indulge in ‘wife-lending’ • Commit infanticide • Leave their elderly parents in the snow to die…

38. Cultural Relativism • Akamarans • Are modern-day cannibals

39. Cultural Relativism [more] • There are two kinds of cultural relativism • Both unpack the meaning of moral claims by appeal to the moral codes that prevail in a culture. • They differ on which culture is important – the culture of the person whose acts are being morally evaluated (the “agent”) or the culture of the person doing the evaluating.

40. First type of cultural relativism: ‘Agent Relativism’ It is morally right for eskimos to kill their aged parents • “It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x” means • “Doing x is prohibited (permitted) by the moral code prevailing in a’s culture.” Parent-killing is permitted in eskimo culture =

41. Agent relativism • Question: • If agent relativism is true, should the Akamarans continue to indulge in cannibalism? It is morally right for Akamarans to continue eating people Cannibalism is permitted in Akamaran culture =

42. Agent relativism and moral objectivity If Agent Relativism is correct, then moral claims are objective: • They are true or false • Whether a given claim is true or false does not depend on who says it. It is morally right for Akamarans to continue eating people It is morally right for Akamarans to continue eating people

43. Objection to agent relativism • If agent relativism is true, then: • It makes no sense to criticize the moral codes of other cultures, nor does it makes sense to say that an action which accords with the moral rules of the agent’s culture is wrong. • Thus it makes no sense to criticize the actions of the slave traders, Nazis or Al Qaeda terrorists. The Nazis should not have operated concentration camps.

44. Another illustration: agent relativism and the case of the missionaries You Akamarans ought not to eat people Is this right?

45. Second type of cultural relativism: ‘Speaker Relativism’ It was morally wrong for the Nazis to exterminate Jews • “It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x” means • “Doing x is prohibited (permitted) by the moral code prevailing in my (i.e. the speaker’s) culture.” Exterminating Jews is forbidden in 21st century American culture =

46. Speaker relativism and moral objectivity • If speaker relativism is correct, then moral claims are not objective. • They are true or false, but • Whether a given moral claim is true or false depends on who is making the claim. It is morally wrong for Akamarans to eat people It is morally wrong for Akamarans to eat people

47. Objections to speaker relativism (1) • Moral disagreements across cultures are an illusion. You Akamarans ought not to eat people There’s nothing wrong with Akamarans eating people

48. Objections to speaker relativism (2) • If speaker relativism is right, then moral criticism of the moral code of one’s own culture is incoherent. • Example: the slave trade reformer This is NOT RIGHT!

49. Emotivism • The distinction between asserting you have a feeling and expressing that feeling. • Examples • “I am disgusted by your behavior.” vs.  • “I am in severe pain.” vs. “Ouch!!!!!!” • “I am sexually aroused.” vs. …. • Assertions are either true or false; expressions of feelings are not.

50. Emotivism • The central idea of Emotivism is that, while moral claims look like assertions, they are actually expressions of feeling. • Thus Emotivism is sometimes described as The “Rah!! Boo!!” Theory. Abortion is morally wrong! Abortion…grrr!