1 / 15

Meta-Ethics

Meta-Ethics. Abortion is wrong. Slavery is evil. Honesty is a virtue. ‘ Meta’ from Greek meaning ‘above’ or ‘after’. What is meta-ethics?. Asks whether there are moral facts or not. Discusses what someone is doing when they make a moral claim / judgement.

noelle-richardson
Télécharger la présentation

Meta-Ethics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meta-Ethics Abortion is wrong Slavery is evil Honesty is a virtue ‘Meta’ from Greek meaning ‘above’ or ‘after’

  2. What is meta-ethics? • Asks whether there are moral facts or not. • Discusses what someone is doing when they make a moral claim / judgement. • Considers the significance of calling something right or wrong, good or bad….. What meta-ethics is NOT It does NOT recommend ways to act and feel as do Normative theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Virtue Theory.

  3. COGNITIVISM (REALISM) There are moral facts When we make a moral claim / judgement we are expressing a belief that can be verified (shown to be true or false) NON-COGNITIVISM (IRREALISM) There are no moral facts When we make a moral claim / judgement we are expressing something else i.e., our approval. Two branches of Meta-ethics

  4. The Verification Principle • The principle arose from a group of Logical Positivist Philosophers (using science and observation in philosophy) called ‘The Vienna Circle’, in the early 20th Century. • The principle; A proposition only has meaning if it is, in principle, verifiable (if it can be shown true or false through observation - Empiricism). So, excluding possibility of moral facts

  5. Fact–Value distinction [claim about the world] • FACTS = Details of situation, revealed through observation e.g, abortion & euthanasia methods, effects on people…. • VALUES = Not found in the facts e.g., abortion is wrong, euthanasia is compassionate, honesty is a virtue…. World of facts is free from values & values are just our attitudes to the facts. So, no evaluative conclusions can be drawn from factual premises (reasons). We are free to hold any moral view.

  6. Is-Ought Gap [claim about logic] • No ‘ought’ – MORAL - statement can be deduced from ‘is’ – FACTUAL - statements. ‘you ought not kill’, ‘you ought to tell the truth’ • Cannot draw a moral evaluative conclusion from factual statements. Irrealism / Non-Cognitivism accepts both the Fact-Value distinction and the Is-Ought gap.

  7. David Hume • Influenced the Logical Positivists. • Sentiment is the source of right and wrong. • If you decide to help someone you do so because you have certain feelings i.e., compassion, it is nothing to do with reason. • ‘..when you pronounce any action…to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that..you have a feeling or sentiment of blame…’

  8. Non-cognitivism:Emotivism – ‘Boo-Hurrah theory’ Ayer– Meaningful statements must be verified synthetically or analytically. Religious beliefs & moral claims cannot be verified in these ways, so are not meaningful (not facts or knowledge.) • When making a moral judgement you are expressing your emotions. • You are also trying to get others to feel and act the same way. e.g., ‘It is wrong to steal’ = I feel it is wrong to steal, you should feel the same way and not steal.

  9. Ayer– • Moral arguments are simply people expressing their emotions. • Some moral statements are like commands [Prescriptivism takes this further] • Stevenson – more than expression of emotion • Moral arguments are where there is a disagreement in attitude or underlying belief. • Moral claims have two parts; • expression of an attitude based on a belief • persuasive element to influence others

  10. Difficulties with Emotivism Ayer’s version; • Moral disagreement is impossible,e.g., ‘Diane Pretty was refused euthanasia’, I say ‘boo!’, you say ‘hurrah!’ Just disagree about the emotion expressed. No more than different preferences. Both versions; • Rely on fact-value distinction. If this is shown to be untrue the theory collapses. • Are we always trying to influence everyone to share our point of view? What about diversity and debate?

  11. Non-cognitivism:PRESCRIPtivism R.M.Hare; • Moral statements are prescriptive, they command behaviour and guide action. ‘You ought to keep promises’ = a command to act. [‘Ought’ corresponds to ‘right’] • Moral statements as objective. Act on maxims you are prepared to Universalise – would you want everyone to do the same in similar circumstances? [= reason has a role in Prescriptivism, unlike Emotivism] • To say something is ‘good’ is to commend it, I am then committed to following this judgement.

  12. Difficulties with Prescriptivism • Universalisability. Can any two situations be similar enough to universalise judgements? • Commend without commanding. We can think something is good without being compelled to follow it e.g. examples of courage. • Hare believes moral principles override all others. In some situations this may be false. • Relies on the fact-value distinction.

  13. MORAL CLAIMS… Express emotion Influence others Indicate an underlying belief Prescribe, command action Are objective because they are universalised Emotivism – Ayer Emotivism – Stevenson Prescriptivism - Hare SUMMARY

More Related