Meta-Ethics summarised

• Utilitarianism A01

  1. Act utilitarianism
  2. The principle of utility - teleological
  3. The hedonic calculus
  4. Mill Rule utilitarianism and quality
• DCT A01

  1. God speaks - Joshua
  2. Value of God’s commands - Moses
  3. Karl Barth Christian and secular ethics
  4. God as creator - Protestant ideas
• Intuitionism A01

  1. Definition: simple and complex words
  2. G.E Moore naturalistic fallacy
  3. W.D Ross prima facie
  4. Pritchard
• DCT - God speaks

  God’s commands act as a guide for Christians when faced with moral dilemmas. This idea stems from the Bible. Historically, God has been known to speak to his followers, such as Joshua who was commanded to kill all of those in Jericho, which occupied sinners who posed a threat to God’s kingdom. As God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, we know his commands are intrinsically good so Christians have clear rules on what is right and wrong.
• DCT - God as creator

  Protestants believe that God is the creator of the universe so his commands must be followed. As God is the creator of everything, there must be a link between creator and created, and this is reflected in Genesis 1:26-27 (humans are created in God’s images). This means that like God, humans have a rational and moral character. Therefore, human behaviour should follow God’s commands.
• DCT - The value of God’s commands

  God’s commands are highly significant for Christians. His commands act as rules and they are widely accepted in society, with laws based on God’s commands. They offer guidance for those who are struggling and help unite the community. For example, Moses was gifted the Ten Commandments to restore order at Mount Sinai. This is also shown in modern day Christianity with Christians sharing their love for God at church and connecting with the wider Christian community through these shared values.
• DCT - 20th century views Karl Barth

  Karl Barth argues that God has settled the problem of right and wrong but the issue lies in fallible humans misinterpreting commands or not following them how they were intended to. The commands of God set Christian ethics apart from general secular discussions about what is good or right and overrides the fallible human debate on moral issues. While Christians should listen to and understand secular ethical principles, the question of good and evil has been decided and settled by God so we should follow his commands.
• DCT - strengths and weaknesses 1/2

  1. A strong deontological theory with clear rules —> there are so many different commands in the Bible, to what extent should Christians follow these? Are they too restrictive?
  2. We know that God’s commands are intrinsically good based on his nature (omnipotence and omnibenevolence) —> Euthyphro dilemma horn 1: good because God commands it. What about killing in the Old Testament? Is that good? What about modern societal standards? Contradicts himself
• DCT - strengths and weaknesses 2/2

  3. The rules are universal and are right for all times and places. It can apply to anyone. —> Different religions have different principles so this only applies for Christians, does not break into secular ethics either.
• Utilitarianism - Naturalist and hedonic calculus

  Bentham’s utilitarianism is a naturalist approach; it defines language by analysing human behaviour. Bentham believed that pain and pleasure are what drives humans to make moral decisions; this makes him a hedonist. We observe this to be true, so we can see these facts in human nature. Using the hedonic calculus; evaluating qualities such as intensity, extent and certainty, we can determine how much pleasure and pain is generated by one action.
• Utilitarianism: principle of utility

  Bentham’s principle of utility determined the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its usefulness. Usefulness refers to the quantity of pleasure caused by the action. This is a teleological ethical theory because it is concerned with the consequences of actions rather than the intention behind the act. Bentham says that the greatest good is the greatest pleasure generated and the least pain; this allows the maximum happiness for the most people.
• Utilitarianism - act utilitarianism

  Act utilitarianism maintains that whenever possible, the principle of utility should be applied to each individual act. Bentham argues that we cannot apply a general rule to every act because the consequence will always be different and this could lead to more pain and suffering for the individual. For example, if lying brings about a lesser result than telling the truth then they should tell the truth. Even if the person breaks the law, in that situation greater happiness will occur.
• Utilitarianism - Mill 1/2

  J. S. Mill developed utilitarianism, establishing his own approach to moral dilemmas different from Bentham’s. Mill acknowledged the problems with act utilitarianism and attempted to address them with rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism establishes an overall rule by determining the course of action which leads to the best results for the whole community.
• Utilitarianism - Mill 2/2

  For example, a rule utilitarian would always follow the rules, such as speed limits because this affects the wider community. Even if it would bring them more pleasure to speed, it would not impress the majority. Mill also used the harm principle - if it is dangerous to follow the rules then the harm principle overrides it.
• Utilitarianism - strengths and weaknesses 1/2

  1. A practical system that many people follow without realising it. UK politics is also broadly utilitarian in character —> the greatest good for the greatest number hurts minorities. And avoids the effects on the minority
  2. Based on human behaviour which we can easily study. We know that people seek pleasure and avoid pain. It makes logical sense —> Happiness varies between people so it is difficult to define. Some people gain pleasure from hurting others.
• Utilitarianism - strengths and weaknesses

  3. Principle of utility measures how good an act is. Teleological theory - we cannot guess the consequences of an action. We can never be sure of any action. May cause more harm than good
• Ethical naturalism - strengths and weaknesses 1/2

  1. Ethical propositions are true because they are factual. Facts are grounded in human nature —> Ayer argued that ethical claims can not be verified or falsified. There will always be someone who disagrees with a particular ethical principle. Emotivism - moral statements reduce to statements of approval or disapproval
  2. Right and wrong are objective - they exist in the world outside ourselves. Eg utilitarianism (right = majority happy, wrong = majority in pain)
• Ethical naturalism - strengths and weaknesses 2/2

  Argument against point 2 —> the naturalistic fallacy (GE Moore). It is a mistake to try and define the concept good because it is a simple word

  3. Can give us solid guidelines and rules to follow, as with rule utilitarianism —> good is undefinable - Open Question argument. Whenever we ask questions about good, they are open so there is nothing unintelligible about this question to the person who asks it
• Intuitionism - Moore’s definition

  Intuitionism is the meta-ethical view that moral knowledge is a factual property known by intuition. Moore concluded that good is a term that cannot be defined or explained in terms of anything more basic, so it is an ethical non-naturalist theory. There are complex words; these can be analysed by multiple different traits, such as a horse with its heel, elbow or muzzle. Whereas good is a simple and unanalysable word so it cannot be defined as anything. It is just good
• Intuitionism - stand alone beliefs 1/2

  One of the key aspects of intuitionism is that its beliefs are not supported by inference from other beliefs. Moral judgements are self evident to those that hold them. Intuitionism is a form of moral realism: moral truths exist independently of persons. These moral truths are evident through the trolley problem. Some may take a utilitarian approach and assess that to kill one person minimises the pain for the other five.
• Intuitionism - stand alone beliefs 2/2

  However the intuitionist approach would typically not switch the lever because to make an active choice to kill someone is worst than accidentally killing someone. These duties present differently in everyone, which is why they are self-evident and based on individual truths.
• Intuitionism - prima facie

  W. D. Ross developed ideas as to how people choose between conflicting duties. He called this prima facie - first appearances - and these presented as a number of duties that one should follow, including to keep our promises and not harm innocent people. If there is a conflict between two or more duties, then I have to balance them and consider what to do. When moral intuition comes in, one is forced to consider conflicting duties. According to Ross’ prima facie, if you had to choose between lying or harming your friend, lying would come first.
• Intuitionism - naturalistic fallacy

  Moore argues that good cannot be defined. To define good as pleasure is, like other ethical theories do, is a ‘naturalistic fallacy’. If a naturalist claims that goodness consists of things that leads to pleasure, we will then be able to identify the thing that leads to pleasure but still be left with the question ‘But is it good?’. We will never know. With intuitionism, we can still make moral choices but without having to define good.
• Intuitionism - strengths and weaknesses 1/2

  1. Everyone has moral intuitions that are true to the individual. For example, some may be able to justify killing in war or self defence but not murder —> does not give a satisfactory answer to the question of how it is that we come to have intuitions about right and wrong. We cannot observe it, how do we know it exists?
  2. Overcomes the problems of ethical naturalism, such as what the facts are. Intuitionism does not overcomplicate ethical decision making —>
• Intuitionism - strengths and weaknesses 2/2

  2nd part of argument 2 —> People cannot justify their intuitions because it is individual. No clear rules

  3. Intuitionism is still a form of moral realism. It is realistic in admitting it is not perfect which is why we still have disagreements in our moral intuitions. For Ross this is because people’s thinking about conflicting prima facie duties is not deep enough —> can be unconsciously influenced by social norms