week nine

• Branches of ethics 


  I. Applied ethics - is it right/wrong?

  II. Normative ethics - why is right/wrong?

  III. Meta-ethics - is there such thing as right/wrong?
• Normative ethics

  • provides criteria for the right action, the virtuous character and/or the good state of affairs
  • e.g is it an action's consequences that make it right/wrong?
• Applied ethics

  • Takes principles of normative ethics and apply to moral problems
  • e.g should we censor the arts?
• Meta-ethics

  • not interested in moral theory of goodness
  • focuses on higher order analysis
  • e.g is there moral truths
• Consequentialism (normative)

  • an act is morally good if it produces good consequences
  • pleasure & avoiding pain, preference, development of talents
• Universalism vs Egosim (consequentialism, normative)

  • universalism - everyone equally important, consequences for all people matter
  • egosim - only your own consequences matter
• Utilitarianism (consequentialism)

  • hedonistic - max pleasure, min pain for most people
  • some focus on preference satisfaction
• Instrumental vs Intrinsic value (consequentialism)

  • instrumental - means of getting something ie money
  • intrinsic - valued for its own sake ie friendship
• Deontology (normative)

  • morality of act determined by intrinsic feature of the act itself
  • act can be wrong even if brings about better consequences
  • talks about rights and duty
• Kantian deontology (normative)

  • Kant believed we identify the intrinsic rightness/wrongness of an act using reason - no emotion
  • good acts come from sense of duty
  • categorical imperative: don't treat as a means to an end
• Virtue ethics (normative)

  • what matters for morality is the kind of people we are - kind/cruel
  • right action is one that an entirely virtuous person would do
• Virtue & vices

  • traces back to Aristotle - understood human virtues as falling between vices of deficiency of excess
  • Timidity/humility/arrogance
  • Cowardice/courage/recklessness
• Consequentialist moral argument

  • includes a premise about goodness/badness of a consequence
  • 1 about how action leads to consequence
  • 2 premises guarantee conclusion
  • deductively valid, proper form
• Consequentialist moral argument form

  1. Action A= consequence C
  2. It'd be good/ bad for C to occur

  therefore

  3. It would be right/wrong to perform A
• Deontological moral arguments

  • premise about action's intrinsic feature + premise which says acts with that feature are right/wrong
  • 2 premises guarantee conclusion - deductively valid
• Deontological moral argument form

  1. Action A has intrinsic feature F
  2. morally right/wrong to do act with F

  therefore

  3. Action A is morally right/wrong
• Virtue ethical moral argument

  • moral evaluation of people's habits + dispositions is more fundamental than moral evaluation of actions
  • deductively valid
• Virtue ethical moral argument form

  1. Action A would be performed by a person that is a paragon of virtue
  2. Action is only right if performed by a virtuous person

  therefore

  3. It's right to perform A
• Aretaic moral arguments

  • evaluate people on basis of doing good actions for good consequences
  • actions agent takes are good/bad = agent is good/bad
• Aretaic moral argument form

  1. Agent H does good/bad actions for good/bad reasons

  Therefore

  2. H is a good/bad person
• Higher order of discipline (meta-ethics)

  • don't make moral judgement
  • non-moral judgements about moral judgements + discourse
  • 'second order' discipline
  • e.g 'moral statements cannot really be true/false'
• Moral semantics (meta-ethics)


  • asks questions about the meanings of moral discourse
  • e.g 'what is the role of moral discourse?'
• Moral metaphysics (meta-ethics)


  • asks questions about whether there is a moral reality and questions about its nature
  • e.g 'is there a moral reality?'
• Moral epistemology (meta-ethics)


  • asks whether there can be moral knowledge & about the nature of our moral beliefs
  • e.g 'if there's moral truths, how can we come to know them?'
• Moral phenomenology (meta-ethics)


  • focuses on the 1st person experiences we have that relate to morality
  • e.g 'how does it feel to have a moral life?'
• Moral psychology (meta-ethics)


  • asks questions about the psychology of how we make moral decisions
  • e.g 'how do our moral capacities develop as we grow?'
• Moral cognitivism vs non-cognitivism 


  1. moral cognitivism (cognitive state) - moral judgements are beliefs, truth apt
  2. moral non-cognitivism (affective state) - moral judgements are attitudes, not truth apt
• Moral cognitivism 


  • expresses moral beliefs - truth apt
  • moral disagreement: can be genuine disagreement as one person can say something truth apt and the other false
• Non-cognitivism 


  • express attitudes not beliefs
  • declarative form - not true or false
• Non-factivity 


  • no moral facts to begin with
  • function to express attitudes and/or influence behaviour
• Cognitivist accounts - objectivism


  express true/false proposition, at least one party is objectively false
• Cognitivist accounts - (first person) subjectivism


  describe their beliefs, subjectively true/false - ie 'I believe that'
• Cognitivist accounts - cultural relativism 


  someone expresses the predominant moral view in society - differs in truth value
• Non-cognitivist accounts: emotivism 


  express emotions & aim to produce same in others - not declarative
• Non-cognitivist accounts: prescriptivism 


  use of imperative, ie 'do not kill' means killing is wrong
• Non-cognitivist accounts: expressivism 


  • systemic connection between moral language and expression
  • approval/disapproval
  • attitude not belief
• Fallacy - appeal to nature


  • argues that because something is natural it must be good/right
  • inverse is also fallacy - unnatural = bad