Meta-Ethics

What do   we mean
                                 

when we use ethical

language?
 Meta-Ethics
• Meta-ethics is concerned with
what we mean when we use
words like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘right’
‘wrong’.
•
• It is not a normative system
of ethics – its does not tell us
what we can and can’t do
• Theft in Buna (the factory) punished by civil law, is
authorised and encouraged by the SS; theft in the
camp, severely repressed by the SS is considered by
the civilians as a normal exchange operation; theft
among prisoners is generally punished, but the
punishment strikes the theif and victim with equal
gravity. We now invite the reader to contemplate the
possible meaning in Aushwitz of the words ‘good’,
‘evil’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’; let everyone judge ... How
much of this ordinary moral world can survive on this
side of the wire. – Primo Levi

• What philosophical questions does this raise?

• Realist – believe it actually exists
independently of you, out there in the world-
morality can be discovered

• Anti – realist – do not believe it exists in the

world and word refers to something else –
eg a property in our minds- morality is
decided or invented

• What does this term mean? What does this

word refer to?
Term Realists say it refer Anti – Realists might
to say this term refer
to ...
Beauty Beautiful things are out Our response to objects
there in the world that we have been
socially conditioned to
call beautiful

Red The property of A mental image or idea

redness in the world of redness
/electron A quantum object A term which has a
which has a negative place in a complex
electrical charge theoretical system that
usefully explains certain
phenomena witnessed
in laboratories

Wrong The breaking of one of An expression of our

god’s commandments disapproval at certain
types of action
• Cognitivist – theory which says that
statements and judgements express our
beliefs about the world in known as this
• - true or false
• Matches with realism
• - rationalist theories, naturalist, intuitionist
theories
• Non-cognitivist – statements which do not
refer to the world at all – have no truth
value –emotivism, prescriptivsm, ethical
relativism, moral nihilism
 Background
The philosopher David Hume was an empiricist: he
argued that things can only be ‘real’ or ‘meaningful’ if
they can be verified or proved by our five senses.
e.g.: I know oranges exist because I have seen,
smelt, touched and tasted them
 Ethical Naturalism
A branch of ethics called Ethical
Naturalism developed from empiricism
and the ideas of David Hume.

These ethicists argued that

we observe the world
around us and create moral
theories for fit our
observations.
 An Example…
If we could prove, empirically and provide
proof, that women make better parents
than men (i.e. if this was a fact)

Then we could argue than

men should not be single
parents. (moral judgement)
 Is-Ought Gap
• Many opponents of the naturalist
position argue that we cannot make the
leap between a FACT (is) and a MORAL
JUDGEMENT (ought).
 Naturalistic Fallacy
• This jump from an is to an ought, from
fact to moral judgement is what critics
of Naturalism call the Naturalistic
Fallacy.
 Is this really ethics?
• Is this form of naturalism what we
would call ‘ethics’ or is it sociology, or
psychology?
 Intuitionism
The philosopher G.E. Moore criticised
naturalism. Instead he said we have an
infallible intuitive knowledge of good
things.

e.g. I don’t need to observe a murder to

know that killing someone is wrong – I
just know it is.
Continued ….

• When I make a moral decision I am

simply choosing the outcome that will
bring about these good things.
 Simple v Complex
Moore argued that there are simple and
complex ideas.

Complex = ‘horse’ can be broken down

into animal, mammal, quadraped,
equine.
Simple = ‘yellow’ we can’t break it down
any further.
 Moral terms are simple
‘Good’
‘Bad’
‘Right’
‘Wrong’

Are simple terms ‘Good’ is simply ‘good’.

Moral judgements cannot be proven

Moore further argued that moral

judgements cannot be proven
empirically.
We cannot observe pleasure and then say
that goodness is pleasure.
 W.D. Ross - Intuitionism
Ross accepted Moore’s version of ethics
and also added that in any given
situation moral duties or obligations
become apparent.

These are called prima facie duties.

Prima facie means ‘at first appearance’
 Prima Facie Duties
• Ross listed the following as prima facie
duties:
Keeping a promise, reparation for harm
done, gratitude, justice, beneficence,
self-improvement and non-maleficence
He acknowledged that this list might not
be complete.
 Emotivism
A.J. Ayer was a Logical Positivist. He
believed that meaningful statements
had to be verified either synthetically or
analytically otherwise they are
meaningless.
 Analytic Statements
1+1=2
All triangles have 3 sides
All spinsters are unmarried women

All of these statements are true in

themselves – they are true by definition
 Synthetic Statements
It’s snowing
There’s a squirrel in that tree
That chair is brown

These are all synthetic statements - they

can be verified by our five senses.
 So what are moral statements?

Moral statements cannot be verified synthetically or

analytically. Therefore they are not truths or facts.

Moral statements are simply expressions

of preference, attitude or feeling.
 Emotivism – ‘boo’ ‘hurrah’
Moral statements come from our
emotional responses to situations.

When I say murder is wrong I am saying

‘murder – boooooooo!’
When I say giving to charity is good I am
saying ‘charity - hurrrrrah!’
 C. L. Stevenson
Stevenson added to Ayer’s theory by
asserting that when we make moral
statements we are not only expressing
our emotional response to a situation
but we are also trying to persuade
others to have the same emotional
response.
 The Removal of Reason
The removal of reason is one of the major
criticisms of emotivism and intuitionism.
James Rachels argues that it is wrong of
Ayer to make a connection between the
‘ouch’ response when you stub your toe
and the ‘that’s wrong’ reaction when
you see details of a murder on the
news.
 Prescriptivism
Moral statements are objective. They are
both prescriptive and universal.

The only coherent way to

behave morally is to act on
judgements that you are
prepared to universalise.
 Prescriptivism
• Moral statements are objective. They
are prescriptive and universal

The only way to act morally in any

situation is to respond in a way that we
would be prepared to say that
EVERYONE should have to behave.
A summary of meta-ethics…

Meta-ethics
How we use ethical
language and where it
comes from.

Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism

Our intuition tells What is right or wrong When I say something
us what is right is simply an is right I’m trying
or wrong emotional response to get you to think
to a situation the same
 Our ethical journey so far …

ETHICS

NORMATIVE ETHICS META-ETHICS

Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism

ABSOLUTE RELATIVE
G.E. Moore
A.J. Ayer
H.A. Pritchard R.M. Hare
C.L. Stevenson
W.D. Ross
Natural Law Virtue Ethics

Thomas Aquinas Aristotle