Meta Ethics
Cognitivism and Realism
1. Cognitivist vs. Non-Cognitivist: Cognitivism determines whether a
moral statement can be true or false
Example Of Cognitive Statement: Lying is bad.
Example Of Non- Cognitive Statement: I think lying isn’t bad.
2. Realist vs. Anti-Realist: Realism determines whether moral truths exist
in the world or not.
Realist statement: Tyrants are bad rulers.
Anti-realist statement: Tyrants are rulers (because we cannot determine whether they
are good or bad)
Cognitivism is not the same as realism since a cognitivist can be an error
theorist and think all moral statements false.
All realists are cognitivists as they think moral statements are apt for truth
and falsity and that many of them are in fact true.
Naturalism
Cognitivist realist metaethical theory
Moral absolutism: Ethical statements and facts about the world are the
same as there is so much empirical evidence to prove it
Fact: Hitler was the leader of the Nazi’s = Ethical statement: Hitler was a bad
man.
Cultural Relativism is a naturalistic theory, as the norms of the society
(natural properties) are taken as moral truth and can naturally vary.
Things can be morally wrong relative to the changeable presence of a
natural property than absolutely morally wrong.
Mill Hedonic naturalism: Happiness is the only “proof” of good, with observable
desirability being “all the proof the case admits of” that happiness is good.
Can have moral relativity, since humans feel desire towards certain things,
these things must be good in themselves (Mill)
Plato Good is a natural property, but outside of our perceptions of reality
(cognitive anti-realist approach?)
Epicurus Hedonic naturalism: Pleasure is the absolute good, nothing else.
Foot (Natural A good thing is determined by how much it has compelled people to follow
Goodness) it. We can observe people acting loyal, kind and humbly, so it must be a true
observable moral good. We can perceive moral absolutes (virtues)
from observing how people act.
Moral evil is a “natural defect”
Bradley (Ethical “Good” is just the universal and concrete duty a man does from living and
Studies) observing the purpose of others when living in a society. Social order
dictates your moral duties. Labels the breakdown of the family system in the
West as a moral failure.
Aquinas Theological naturalism: Goodness is the God-given natural order: how good
a thing is can be determined by how much it fulfils its telos. Evil has no
, actuality. Reason being exercised in conducive to goodness.
Adultery is wrong as it prevents reproduction, and the ensuing human
flourishment.
Augustine “Things that exist are good”- existence is necessary for goodness
Mackie Moral good can be observed, but within a set tradition (an institution) rather
(Inventing Right than an overarching moral absolute. That’s why rules can differ whether you
and Wrong) are within or outside the institution. (Chess example)
Hurstshorne As rational beings we can identify the traits/natural factors that help us meet
the Four Particular Ends, and these traits become virtue.
Empirical criticism (Hume)
Moral claims are from sentiment, not fact
“If/Ought” problem/Hume’s Law: We move from fact (if) to prescribing
morality (ought) too soon, giving them an unjustified relationship
John Searle’s response
The act of promising, by definition places the promiser under obligation.
Therefore evaluative statements can follow from fact.
"Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars," it logically follows that "Jones
ought to pay Smith five dollars."
Naturalistic Fallacy (G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica)
Error of assuming good is the same as a natural quality like pleasure
Example: (“Open ended question”) Masturbation is pleasant, but is it
good? If we change it to “masturbation is good but is it good?” the whole
consideration of the statement becomes wrong. This proves that hedonists
are wrong.
Naturalism is right to say that moral Naturalism is wrong to say that moral
values are a feature of the world because: values are a feature of the world because:
Mill: Things being good, and desirable is proof Moore: Pleasure is not the same as good, as
that people want happiness (a moral truth) there is always an open-ended question
regarding pleasure
Avoids reducing morality to opinion, as that Existentialism denies any existence of inherent
would make moral issues akin to trivial things good or order in anything
like personal preference
There is a level of universal consent We cannot empirically detect the good, as that
(categorical imperative) on morality that it depends too much on human sentiment (an
must be somewhat factual alien could not detect the moral good, so the
naturalistic theory is weak)
Provides a scientific basis for proving moral Searle: The act of promising, by definition
statements: science tells us factually that places the promiser under obligation. Therefore
killing people is wrong, and avoids depending evaluative statements can follow from fact.
on justifications based on Gods and Forms of
Good
Ayer: Moral judgements fail the verification
principle
M. Smith: The absolutist/relativist debate
should be a priori, or non-testable in the world
as we perceive it as otherwise it can never be
settled.
Cognitivism and Realism
1. Cognitivist vs. Non-Cognitivist: Cognitivism determines whether a
moral statement can be true or false
Example Of Cognitive Statement: Lying is bad.
Example Of Non- Cognitive Statement: I think lying isn’t bad.
2. Realist vs. Anti-Realist: Realism determines whether moral truths exist
in the world or not.
Realist statement: Tyrants are bad rulers.
Anti-realist statement: Tyrants are rulers (because we cannot determine whether they
are good or bad)
Cognitivism is not the same as realism since a cognitivist can be an error
theorist and think all moral statements false.
All realists are cognitivists as they think moral statements are apt for truth
and falsity and that many of them are in fact true.
Naturalism
Cognitivist realist metaethical theory
Moral absolutism: Ethical statements and facts about the world are the
same as there is so much empirical evidence to prove it
Fact: Hitler was the leader of the Nazi’s = Ethical statement: Hitler was a bad
man.
Cultural Relativism is a naturalistic theory, as the norms of the society
(natural properties) are taken as moral truth and can naturally vary.
Things can be morally wrong relative to the changeable presence of a
natural property than absolutely morally wrong.
Mill Hedonic naturalism: Happiness is the only “proof” of good, with observable
desirability being “all the proof the case admits of” that happiness is good.
Can have moral relativity, since humans feel desire towards certain things,
these things must be good in themselves (Mill)
Plato Good is a natural property, but outside of our perceptions of reality
(cognitive anti-realist approach?)
Epicurus Hedonic naturalism: Pleasure is the absolute good, nothing else.
Foot (Natural A good thing is determined by how much it has compelled people to follow
Goodness) it. We can observe people acting loyal, kind and humbly, so it must be a true
observable moral good. We can perceive moral absolutes (virtues)
from observing how people act.
Moral evil is a “natural defect”
Bradley (Ethical “Good” is just the universal and concrete duty a man does from living and
Studies) observing the purpose of others when living in a society. Social order
dictates your moral duties. Labels the breakdown of the family system in the
West as a moral failure.
Aquinas Theological naturalism: Goodness is the God-given natural order: how good
a thing is can be determined by how much it fulfils its telos. Evil has no
, actuality. Reason being exercised in conducive to goodness.
Adultery is wrong as it prevents reproduction, and the ensuing human
flourishment.
Augustine “Things that exist are good”- existence is necessary for goodness
Mackie Moral good can be observed, but within a set tradition (an institution) rather
(Inventing Right than an overarching moral absolute. That’s why rules can differ whether you
and Wrong) are within or outside the institution. (Chess example)
Hurstshorne As rational beings we can identify the traits/natural factors that help us meet
the Four Particular Ends, and these traits become virtue.
Empirical criticism (Hume)
Moral claims are from sentiment, not fact
“If/Ought” problem/Hume’s Law: We move from fact (if) to prescribing
morality (ought) too soon, giving them an unjustified relationship
John Searle’s response
The act of promising, by definition places the promiser under obligation.
Therefore evaluative statements can follow from fact.
"Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars," it logically follows that "Jones
ought to pay Smith five dollars."
Naturalistic Fallacy (G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica)
Error of assuming good is the same as a natural quality like pleasure
Example: (“Open ended question”) Masturbation is pleasant, but is it
good? If we change it to “masturbation is good but is it good?” the whole
consideration of the statement becomes wrong. This proves that hedonists
are wrong.
Naturalism is right to say that moral Naturalism is wrong to say that moral
values are a feature of the world because: values are a feature of the world because:
Mill: Things being good, and desirable is proof Moore: Pleasure is not the same as good, as
that people want happiness (a moral truth) there is always an open-ended question
regarding pleasure
Avoids reducing morality to opinion, as that Existentialism denies any existence of inherent
would make moral issues akin to trivial things good or order in anything
like personal preference
There is a level of universal consent We cannot empirically detect the good, as that
(categorical imperative) on morality that it depends too much on human sentiment (an
must be somewhat factual alien could not detect the moral good, so the
naturalistic theory is weak)
Provides a scientific basis for proving moral Searle: The act of promising, by definition
statements: science tells us factually that places the promiser under obligation. Therefore
killing people is wrong, and avoids depending evaluative statements can follow from fact.
on justifications based on Gods and Forms of
Good
Ayer: Moral judgements fail the verification
principle
M. Smith: The absolutist/relativist debate
should be a priori, or non-testable in the world
as we perceive it as otherwise it can never be
settled.
