Meta ethics

• Moral realism holds that there are objective moral truths independent of human beliefs or opinions.
• Philosophical investigation above normative ethics involves meta-ethical theories which argue for what goodness is.
• There are two main aspects of the question of what goodness is: metaphysical and linguistic.
• Kant is overly optimistic, claiming that the rational cognitive part of the mind operates independently of the non-cognitive side when making moral decisions.
• Metaphysical aspect of the question of what goodness is involves answering what the nature of goodness is.
• Moral realism is the view that moral properties (goodness/badness) exist in reality.
• Moral anti-realism is the view that moral properties (goodness/badness) do not exist in reality.
• Linguistic aspect of the question of what goodness is involves answering what the meaning of ethical language is.
• Cognitivism is the view that ethical language expresses beliefs about reality which can therefore be true/false.
• Non-cognitivism is the view that ethical language expresses some non-cognition like an emotion, does not attempt to describe reality and therefore cannot be true or false.
• Normative ethics devise a system to determine which actions are good and which are bad.
• All normative theories have a meta-ethical core, which is utilitarianism.
• Absolutism is the view that morals are fixed, unchanging truths that everyone should follow.
• Relativism is the view that moral truths are not fixed and are not absolute.
• Naturalism is the view that morals are a part of the natural world and can be recognised or observed in some way.
• Intuitionists believe that moral knowledge is received in a different way from science/ logic.
• Vienna circle is a group of philosophers known as logical positivists who rejected claims that moral truths can be verified as objectively true.
• Emotivism is the view that moral statements are not statements of fact but are beliefs or emotions.
• Hume’s law states that you cannot go from statement of fact (IS) to a moral (ought).
• Naturalistic fallacy is G.E. Moore’s argument that it’s a mistake to define moral terms with reference to other properties.
• Kant suggests that ethics can be based on reason; we should remove emotion as motivation.
• Mackie criticises non- cognitive view of ethical language, claiming it has a firm basis in the ordinary thought and meaning of ethical language.
• Hume argues that moral judgements being motivating means must involve desire (emotion/sentiment), suggesting that Kant’s ideal of good will is an impossible ideal.
• Emotions cannot disagree- they merely differ and conflict.
• The appearance of moral disagreement involving logic and argument may be explained by people being unconscious of arbitrary emotional associations with certain facts.
• Mackie uses the example of a scientist doing research on bacteriological ware, morally perplexed, wondering if such research is wrong.
• Mackie suggests that ethical language is commonly used like this, regarding ordinary moral judgements having “a claim to objectivity, an assumption that there are objective values”.
• Ethical language cannot be reduced to expression of emotion.
• Kant agrees with Plato, suggesting that as rational agents we should separate our reason from emotional influence when making moral decisions.
• There must be a cognitive element to ethical language.
• When we disagree with someone morally, we “resort to argument” but our arguments do not attempt to show that they have the wrong ethical feeling towards situations which they have “correctly apprehended”.
• Mackie concludes that all ethical language is false due to anti-realism.
• Mackie agrees with Ayer about anti-realism- no mind-independent moral properties or truths.
• Hume argues that reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.
• Ayer claims that moral disagreements are either genuine disagreements about non-moral facts or not genuine disagreements.
• Plato saw human reason as aimed higher than world, at intellectual abstract ideas, in conflict with body which anchored reason in mere physical world with animalistic feelings.
• Outcomes of meta-ethical debates are high stakes: if antirealism is true, then there is no objective goodness/badness so it’s difficult to construct a normative theory.
• If moral realism is true and goodness exists, then the nature of goodness limits normative theories to their validity being based on that correct view of goodness.
• Ethical naturalists are absolutists, expressing moral truth/ reality of universe, not opinion.
• Natural property is a trait or feature that a natural thing has, such as temperature.