Meta-Ethics 3.2.3
What is Meta-Ethics?
-Ethical theories provide a theoretical account of which actions, motives and character traits are
good/bad - they’re intended to provide guidance on how to live.
-Metaethics does not provide guidance, it asks what morality is, philosophically seaking. Eg, when I
say killing is wrong: am I stating a face? (which would be true regardless of what I think).
-It asks, what kind of thing is morality? – Do moral judgements state objective (mind-independent)
truths or subjective (mind-dependant) truths?? + What does moral language mean? – what is its
function, can moral judgements be true/false? Does moral lang describe the world?
-Are moral judgements simply an expression on emotions?
-Purpose is to investigate what the term ‘good’ actually means.
What are the origins of moral principles: reason, emotions/attitudes or society?
Good/ought – what does it mean?
Good – has many meanings and most of them aren’t used in a moral context eg my computer is
good, it fulfils the task I want it to. When you talk of the good, we usually refer to good things eg a
good student and somehow, some good things have something in common: they are good. But this
doesn’t explain what the good as a stand-alone term actually means!
One of the main questions within metaethics – What is the meaning of ethical language?
-If we are unclear about the nature and meaning of words. How can we make authoritative
claims about how people should act?
Normative Ethics Meta Ethics
- Set up moral standards on how to -analyses ethical lang, structure and meaning.
behave eg utilitarianism, Kant. -In what sense are statements true?
- What one ought to do. -Is there a foundation for ethical lang?
Normative theories
-Utilitarians define the good as pleasure. Kantian deontology defines the good as the good will.
1st Key problem with this: How do they decide what the good is? It looks like they are imposing a
definition of the good based on what they want it to be
How they respond – The good is part of the world, its mind-independent. Utilitarianism- the good is
pleasure & pleasure is part of the world. Kant – the good is the good will which is the framework of
the human mind and is rational so its real and universal.
But is that the case? – If there is such a thing as the good in the world:
-Why do cultural moral norms vary so much?
-Why have out moral standards changed so much over the last 100 yrs?
,2nd concern of meta ethics: Whether judgements about what the good is, and what moral values we
should follow are subjective or objective? – if objective, then they’re true for everyone, if subjective
then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.
Meta-ethics
Cognitive Non-cognitive
(Moral judgements CAN be known) (Moral judgements CANNOT be known)
-Naturalism- the good is a natural property
of the world (Our moral judgement based on our
experience of the empirical world -Emotivism (Morality is meaningless)
-Non-naturalism (non-definable property)( Intuitionism, Moore)
- Prescriptivism (commends universal action)
Cognitive/Non-cognitive
-If morality is objective then it is also cognitive. Cognitive meaning moral statements are
propositions which can either be true or false, so they’re meaningful. Cognitivists would argue that
the statement ‘stealing is wrong’ is factually true.
3/3 definition for cognitivism: Cognitivism argues that moral statements can be true or false: moral
propositions describes features of the world, so they are truth apt. They have a truth value.
-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; there are no moral facts as such in the world, moral
statements are not factual claims in the first place. Thus, the statement ‘lying is wrong’ is neither
true nor false.
Cognitivists and non-cognitivists disagree on the truth value of ethical language
Cognitivists- argue that moral propositions eg ‘stealing is wrong’ are truth apt- capable of being
true/false, so moral progress possible. Moral judgements aim to describe how the world is, moral
judgements express beliefs that the claim is true. Values can be derived from facts (naturalism).
Moral truths can be known through reason, experience or intuition.
Non-cognitivists- argue that moral sentences are not factual claims, they aren’t truth apt so no moral
progress. Moral judgements do not aim to describe the world, moral judgements express emotional
responses to the world. Do not describe a mind independent moral reality. Values cannot logically
be derived from facts (fact-value distinction, Is-ought gap).
, -This understanding of morality involving our emotional responses explains why we are motivated to
act in a certain way.
Most cognitivists are moral realists (EXCEPT MACKIE WHO’S COGNITIVIST BUT ANTI-REALIST- Error
Thoery)
Moral Realism – Argues that moral values can be derived from facts. There is a mind independent
moral reality. Morality is part of the fabric of the world. Moral judgements are made true or false
because objective moral properties exist. Moral statements are meaningful, the good exists and can
be discovered.
Intuitionism – the good is a moral intuition.
Non cognitivists are anti-realists.
Anti-realism – All moral statements are false as there is no mind independent moral reality or moral
properties in the world, there is no moral truth waiting to be discovered. Moral judgements are
simply an expression of emotion as without human judgement there is no moral proposition, they
do not describe reality.
However, Implications of saying that morality is neither objective nor absolute (Non-cognitivist):
-If we say that there is no moral truth and no moral properties in the world, that means there is
nothing inherently wrong about genocides, slavery etc. And that means there is no moral truth.
-Beyond this, it also means moral progress is not possible ( as progress implies getting closer to the
truth)
-So, we are no better, morally, than previous societies who did things we find morally objectionable.
Blanshard’s example of rabbit caught in trap: (Against non-cognitivism)
-If morality is essentially the expression of emotions felt when witnessing an event then if no one is
there to observe the rabbit and its pain, then the pain is neither good nor bad. If I am there to
observe it and feel sorry for the rabbit, my claim that this is wrong amounts to no less than
utterance about my emotional reaction to the rabbit’s pain. However, isn’t there something
inherently wrong with the rabbit’s pain? Clearly its suffering exists independently of a perceiver’s
approval or disapproval.
The rabbit example link to J.S Mill Naturalism:
-If the good is pleasure and we feel no actual or potential pleasure in the rabbits suffering, then it is
wrong. The good is a natural (psychological) property of the world: there is a moral realm.
BUT, what are the implications of saying that there is an absolute morality? (Cognitivist)
- We DO still disagree on abortion, euthanasia etc. The fact that we disagree points to the fact
that there is no moral truth and no moral property in the world.
- Morality is just about how we respond EMOTIONALLY to the world: what we like/dislike.
ISSUES:
What is Meta-Ethics?
-Ethical theories provide a theoretical account of which actions, motives and character traits are
good/bad - they’re intended to provide guidance on how to live.
-Metaethics does not provide guidance, it asks what morality is, philosophically seaking. Eg, when I
say killing is wrong: am I stating a face? (which would be true regardless of what I think).
-It asks, what kind of thing is morality? – Do moral judgements state objective (mind-independent)
truths or subjective (mind-dependant) truths?? + What does moral language mean? – what is its
function, can moral judgements be true/false? Does moral lang describe the world?
-Are moral judgements simply an expression on emotions?
-Purpose is to investigate what the term ‘good’ actually means.
What are the origins of moral principles: reason, emotions/attitudes or society?
Good/ought – what does it mean?
Good – has many meanings and most of them aren’t used in a moral context eg my computer is
good, it fulfils the task I want it to. When you talk of the good, we usually refer to good things eg a
good student and somehow, some good things have something in common: they are good. But this
doesn’t explain what the good as a stand-alone term actually means!
One of the main questions within metaethics – What is the meaning of ethical language?
-If we are unclear about the nature and meaning of words. How can we make authoritative
claims about how people should act?
Normative Ethics Meta Ethics
- Set up moral standards on how to -analyses ethical lang, structure and meaning.
behave eg utilitarianism, Kant. -In what sense are statements true?
- What one ought to do. -Is there a foundation for ethical lang?
Normative theories
-Utilitarians define the good as pleasure. Kantian deontology defines the good as the good will.
1st Key problem with this: How do they decide what the good is? It looks like they are imposing a
definition of the good based on what they want it to be
How they respond – The good is part of the world, its mind-independent. Utilitarianism- the good is
pleasure & pleasure is part of the world. Kant – the good is the good will which is the framework of
the human mind and is rational so its real and universal.
But is that the case? – If there is such a thing as the good in the world:
-Why do cultural moral norms vary so much?
-Why have out moral standards changed so much over the last 100 yrs?
,2nd concern of meta ethics: Whether judgements about what the good is, and what moral values we
should follow are subjective or objective? – if objective, then they’re true for everyone, if subjective
then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.
Meta-ethics
Cognitive Non-cognitive
(Moral judgements CAN be known) (Moral judgements CANNOT be known)
-Naturalism- the good is a natural property
of the world (Our moral judgement based on our
experience of the empirical world -Emotivism (Morality is meaningless)
-Non-naturalism (non-definable property)( Intuitionism, Moore)
- Prescriptivism (commends universal action)
Cognitive/Non-cognitive
-If morality is objective then it is also cognitive. Cognitive meaning moral statements are
propositions which can either be true or false, so they’re meaningful. Cognitivists would argue that
the statement ‘stealing is wrong’ is factually true.
3/3 definition for cognitivism: Cognitivism argues that moral statements can be true or false: moral
propositions describes features of the world, so they are truth apt. They have a truth value.
-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; there are no moral facts as such in the world, moral
statements are not factual claims in the first place. Thus, the statement ‘lying is wrong’ is neither
true nor false.
Cognitivists and non-cognitivists disagree on the truth value of ethical language
Cognitivists- argue that moral propositions eg ‘stealing is wrong’ are truth apt- capable of being
true/false, so moral progress possible. Moral judgements aim to describe how the world is, moral
judgements express beliefs that the claim is true. Values can be derived from facts (naturalism).
Moral truths can be known through reason, experience or intuition.
Non-cognitivists- argue that moral sentences are not factual claims, they aren’t truth apt so no moral
progress. Moral judgements do not aim to describe the world, moral judgements express emotional
responses to the world. Do not describe a mind independent moral reality. Values cannot logically
be derived from facts (fact-value distinction, Is-ought gap).
, -This understanding of morality involving our emotional responses explains why we are motivated to
act in a certain way.
Most cognitivists are moral realists (EXCEPT MACKIE WHO’S COGNITIVIST BUT ANTI-REALIST- Error
Thoery)
Moral Realism – Argues that moral values can be derived from facts. There is a mind independent
moral reality. Morality is part of the fabric of the world. Moral judgements are made true or false
because objective moral properties exist. Moral statements are meaningful, the good exists and can
be discovered.
Intuitionism – the good is a moral intuition.
Non cognitivists are anti-realists.
Anti-realism – All moral statements are false as there is no mind independent moral reality or moral
properties in the world, there is no moral truth waiting to be discovered. Moral judgements are
simply an expression of emotion as without human judgement there is no moral proposition, they
do not describe reality.
However, Implications of saying that morality is neither objective nor absolute (Non-cognitivist):
-If we say that there is no moral truth and no moral properties in the world, that means there is
nothing inherently wrong about genocides, slavery etc. And that means there is no moral truth.
-Beyond this, it also means moral progress is not possible ( as progress implies getting closer to the
truth)
-So, we are no better, morally, than previous societies who did things we find morally objectionable.
Blanshard’s example of rabbit caught in trap: (Against non-cognitivism)
-If morality is essentially the expression of emotions felt when witnessing an event then if no one is
there to observe the rabbit and its pain, then the pain is neither good nor bad. If I am there to
observe it and feel sorry for the rabbit, my claim that this is wrong amounts to no less than
utterance about my emotional reaction to the rabbit’s pain. However, isn’t there something
inherently wrong with the rabbit’s pain? Clearly its suffering exists independently of a perceiver’s
approval or disapproval.
The rabbit example link to J.S Mill Naturalism:
-If the good is pleasure and we feel no actual or potential pleasure in the rabbits suffering, then it is
wrong. The good is a natural (psychological) property of the world: there is a moral realm.
BUT, what are the implications of saying that there is an absolute morality? (Cognitivist)
- We DO still disagree on abortion, euthanasia etc. The fact that we disagree points to the fact
that there is no moral truth and no moral property in the world.
- Morality is just about how we respond EMOTIONALLY to the world: what we like/dislike.
ISSUES:
