decides which things are good and bad, give us guidelines on how we should live
2 parts
cognitive and non-cognitive theories
Cognitivism
ethical values exist independently
naturalism
intuitionism
linked to absolutism
objective, either true or false
based on fact
Non-cognitivism
moral statements are subjective
emotivism
linked to relativism
ethical statements are merely opinions and can’t be proven, they have nothing to do with the reality of the world so cannot be true or false
it is impossible to verify an ethical statement using facts, not propositional
it is not possible to define good
Naturalism
morals that can be observed
Vienna Circle
a group of philosophers, known as logical positivists
Emotivism
moral statements are not facts but beliefs or emotions
Hume‘s Law
you cannot go from an ‘is’ (a fact) to an ‘ought’ (moral laws) - “ought does not mean can”
Empiricists
morals arise from human feelings, not things that are observed
A.J Ayer
moral language has some kind of absolute meaning
rejected claims that objective moral truth can be verified as true
ethical non-naturalist
rejected claims that ethics can be seen in the natural world
emotivist, believed moral statements are an emotional outburst
morals are relative to emotion and have no fixed meaning
C.L Stevenson
developed Ayer’s ideas
moral judgements are linked to our beliefs about morals rather than simply emotional outbursts
emotivism is an example of relativism
Ethical Naturalism
ethical statements are facts, can be verified or falsified
if we find supporting evidence, we can conclude the statement
F.H Bradley
naturalist
it is possible to understand our moral duties by observing our position or station in life
outdated as has a hint of Victorian class divisions
certain roles have certain duties or moral values attached to them, eg. mother
your place in society is dependent on your class and origin, this determines your duty
‘what he has to do depends on what his place is, what his function is, and that all comes from his station in the organism‘
Naturalistic Fallacy
G.E Moore
it is a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties (it is a mistake to break Hume’s Law)
G.E Moore
objected to naturalism
intuitionism
cognitivism, believed it is possible to rationalise ‘goodness’
rejected the idea that goodness could be defined as a natural property like happiness or what gives survival advantage
goodness could not be defined at all since goodness is totally indefinable
intuitionism is a non-natural property of a situation that you either recognise or do not recognise (intuition)
morally sighted VS morally blind
if someone cannot see good, you cannot convince them
morally sighted - can see/intuit the goodness
morally blind - do not see it
Moore‘s analogy of the colour yellow
you can’t define the colour yellow because you are morally sighted or morally blind, you can’t convince others
Dylann Roof
2015
shot dead 9 black people in an American church
he cannot see how his actions are wrong, he thought he was doing good
ethical naturalists argue that he can’t see the world normally, he is morally blind
H.A. Prichard
developed G.E. Moore’s ideas
it wasn’t only goodness that was indefinable, but also the idea of obligation
goodness is unrecognisable, so are our obligations
intuitionism helps people decide how to act
everyone has a different moral intuition
conflict between our moral obligations examine the situation and choose the greater obligation
W.D. Ross
built on ideas of Moore and Prichard
he agreed that ‘right’ and ‘obligatory’ are as indefinable as ‘good’
deontologist, focus on action
it was obvious that certain types of actions (prima facie duties) were right
Ross’ Prima Facie Duties
fidelity - promise keeping
reparation - when we have done something wrong
gratitude
justice
benefice - helping others
self improvement
non maleficence - not harming others
tells us to obey the greater prima facie duties, but he doesn’t expand this to explain which duties are the greater ones
Pros of intuitionism
takes Hume’s ‘is-ought’ challenge seriously
there is widespread agreement on moral intuitions
defends the existence of moral facts
Cons of intuitionism
people can have different intuitions on a topic, it is not clear what ‘intuition’ is
idea of an extra ability that is not able to be analysed by the senses seems far-fetched
A.J Ayer - Emotivism
anti-realist theory, there are no moral facts
there are no moral truths, moral statements are based on feelings of approval or disapproval
non-cognitivist theory, statements made about right and wrong are not subject to truth or falsity
ethical statements are meaningless
ethical language is not factual
‘Boo-Hurrah‘ Theory
Logical positivism
an idea developed by members of the vienna circle which considered philosophical analysis to be the way to determine whether an idea is meaningful
G.E Moore - Intuitionism
moral knowledge is learnt through experience
naturalistic fallacy
the yellow analogy
ethical theories that knowledge is received in a different way from science and logic
F.H. Bradley
ethics is something that can be explained by the concrete reality we live in and observe, we can observe good and evil when we see it
J.L. Mackie
it is possible to describe an institution from the outside, eg. promise keeping
moral rules can be observed but are based on tradition rather than absolute constructs
Philippa Foot
when we call someone an ‘honest man’ we recognise them, through their actions, something that we consider to be good
if someone was ‘dishonest’ we can recognise this through our observations of their actions
David Hume
argued against the naturalist claim that morals are absolute facts
argued that moral understandings of good or evil are based on feelings - not the use of reason, eg. wrongness comes from our feelings (guilt) not our use of reason
to derive an ‘is’ (a fact) from an ‘ought’ (a moral judgement) was logically invalid
‘Boo-Hurrah‘ Theory - A.J. Ayer
We use ethical words to express our feelings or attitudes and to evoke similar feelings or attitudes in other people, eg. ’stealing is wrong‘ (Boo) or ‘love is good’ (Hurrah)
The colour yellow analogy - G.E. Moore
Yellow can’t be defined, neither can the term ‘good’
R.M. Hare - emotivism
Prescriptivism, it is wrong to persuade/prescribe ideas to someone