Meta ethics notes:
cognitivism: Moral judgements are not just feelings – they are making truth claims and so can be
true or false.
- If morality is a brutal fact why do we have moral dilemma, why do two people think they are
right despite having different opinions. E.g. one may be pro-abortion the other may be
against abortion. If morality is objective to truth, why don’t we have morality unity if
morality is a fact, why does not everyone agree with each other?
- The disagreement exists because morality is objective not subjective, its an opinion and
what an individual see its right. This can varia from one person to another, from one culture
to another
Non-cognitivists: hold that moral truth claims cannot be known or demonstrated to be true or false.
All moral claims are relative, so each simply asserts their belief. There are no moral facts in the
universe, only attitudes, feelings and desires. Moral statements are emotional expressions often
aimed at commanding or urging others to feel the same. Non-cognitivism: the view that moral
judgements are not true or false as they do not make truth claims. Instead, they express
emotions, preferences, commands or attitudes.
- Simplify morality – morality is more complex than someone’s feeling “BOO-HURRAY” theory.
This make morality subjective an opinion making it lose its function in controlling society and
can create chaos as things like murder can be justified.
Intuitionism: cognitivism and realism theory, morality is a fact but not a natural thing.
- Non – naturalism: (against naturalism theory): Moore argued that we can’t define moral
argument using natural terms because we will commit naturalistic fallacy. His open
argument(O.A) is based on Hume’s “is – ought problem” – which is the idea that people
reach moral conclusion with what ought (moral decision) to be based on what is (fact) and
what they empirically understand. He illustrated how reducing moral property to a natural
property is a mistake vie O.A. No amount of brutal fact can lead to a moral judgement e.g.
you can never say that Hitler is wrong even though he killed 6 million and you can observe.
(only Moore) Unitarianism commit this mistake where they argue that pleasure is a
natural thing that is a synonym of good.
If they are a natural thing pleasure, then why does it change what someone liked at
young age they may dislike when they get older.
o E.g. P1: good – N (pleasure) so if the action brings pleasure it means its good. Eating
fast food bring pleasure.
o If we ask, “sure this action maximise pleasure/people’s choice, but is it right?” –
eating fast food brings pleasure but is it good for our health?
Naturalism reduction of goodness to a natural property fails to work because these
are two separate thing – fact and value: defining one in term of another doesn’t
build the gap bridge. It build circle logical in saying “good is what is pleasurable and
pleasurable is good”.
Begging the question problem: when one assume that a conclusion of their
argument during their premises. In O.A. Moore included a premise within his
cognitivism: Moral judgements are not just feelings – they are making truth claims and so can be
true or false.
- If morality is a brutal fact why do we have moral dilemma, why do two people think they are
right despite having different opinions. E.g. one may be pro-abortion the other may be
against abortion. If morality is objective to truth, why don’t we have morality unity if
morality is a fact, why does not everyone agree with each other?
- The disagreement exists because morality is objective not subjective, its an opinion and
what an individual see its right. This can varia from one person to another, from one culture
to another
Non-cognitivists: hold that moral truth claims cannot be known or demonstrated to be true or false.
All moral claims are relative, so each simply asserts their belief. There are no moral facts in the
universe, only attitudes, feelings and desires. Moral statements are emotional expressions often
aimed at commanding or urging others to feel the same. Non-cognitivism: the view that moral
judgements are not true or false as they do not make truth claims. Instead, they express
emotions, preferences, commands or attitudes.
- Simplify morality – morality is more complex than someone’s feeling “BOO-HURRAY” theory.
This make morality subjective an opinion making it lose its function in controlling society and
can create chaos as things like murder can be justified.
Intuitionism: cognitivism and realism theory, morality is a fact but not a natural thing.
- Non – naturalism: (against naturalism theory): Moore argued that we can’t define moral
argument using natural terms because we will commit naturalistic fallacy. His open
argument(O.A) is based on Hume’s “is – ought problem” – which is the idea that people
reach moral conclusion with what ought (moral decision) to be based on what is (fact) and
what they empirically understand. He illustrated how reducing moral property to a natural
property is a mistake vie O.A. No amount of brutal fact can lead to a moral judgement e.g.
you can never say that Hitler is wrong even though he killed 6 million and you can observe.
(only Moore) Unitarianism commit this mistake where they argue that pleasure is a
natural thing that is a synonym of good.
If they are a natural thing pleasure, then why does it change what someone liked at
young age they may dislike when they get older.
o E.g. P1: good – N (pleasure) so if the action brings pleasure it means its good. Eating
fast food bring pleasure.
o If we ask, “sure this action maximise pleasure/people’s choice, but is it right?” –
eating fast food brings pleasure but is it good for our health?
Naturalism reduction of goodness to a natural property fails to work because these
are two separate thing – fact and value: defining one in term of another doesn’t
build the gap bridge. It build circle logical in saying “good is what is pleasurable and
pleasurable is good”.
Begging the question problem: when one assume that a conclusion of their
argument during their premises. In O.A. Moore included a premise within his
