View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
eta-ethics
ou will rememberthat meta-ethics was briefly examinedat the start ofyourAS course.is now timeto look atthis part of ethics in more detail. Meta-ethicsis not concernedvith particular moral theories, as normative ethics is, or how these theories can bepplied to ethicalissues.It is concerned with what we mean by morality. Meta-ethicsovers a variety of
Introduction
questions. Theyare:
What do we mean by ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?Do such concepts have an existence independent ofhuman feelings?Howis it possible to discover whether they do ornot?If they do, what do we mean by them?
oral philosophers answer these questionsin different ways. This depends on thesition they hold regarding the fundamental question: Whatis truth?
ilosophers argue even today about the nature of truth. How they answerthatestion affects the moral questions of meta-ethics. Some, as the writers of thespels did, believe that truth is God-given. There are, for them, absolute moralrms. Theologically these scholars are fideists; they believe by faith alone. Inrality, fideists follow the Divine Commandtheory.
hers reject this view and argue that truth lies in empirical data, in sensory‘ceptions. They take a naturalist position; the natural world is the source of allth. David Hume (1711-1776), the father of modern empiricism, argues that truth' in beliefs that human beings have about the natural world. However, thesest be verified through observation and experience of nature.erts that, through observation of nature, words like ‘good’ can be reduced tone fundamental value. As a result, utilitarians can reduce the word‘good’ to thedamentalvalue of pleasure orwelfare.
199
Key terms
epistemology—
the theory of
knowledge,
including
the origin of
knowledge,
the roles of
experience
andreason
in generating
knowledge and
thevalidity of
knowledge.
ethical
naturalism—
belief that moral
laws can be
verified through
observation
of the natural
world.
| AUnderstanding Religious Ethics
|
Others are not so sure. Realism and cognitivism hold that conceptslike ‘good’ and
Key terms ‘bad’ exist. Moral concepts are universal; sensory experiences can verify them but
|
| they cannot be reduced to a formula, such as Natural Law orthe greatest happiness of
| realism — the greatest number. Whatis ‘good’ just is. Humanintuition or experience discovers
beliefthat it. Realists believe that ethical facts exist. Cognitivists believe that ethical facts exist
| concepts have and can be known.
| a valuein and| ofthemselves, Since the nineteenth century some schools of thought have totally rejected the idea
| which E | that truth exists. In ethics, anti-realism and non-cognitivism take the view that
| independentof morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. The words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have
the human mind, no intrinsic value. It is up to the individual or groups of people to give meaning to
| I of opinions or of Such words.
| feelings.
| aa| cognitivism —
N thebelief that
‘moraltruths exist
andthat ethicalstatements
canbeverified
empirically.
| anti-realism-| rejection of
the ideathat|
| thingshave an| intrinsic value believe that moral concepts, such as right and wrong, actually exist and those who
independent of regard them as matters of opinion or feeling. This division is between cognitivism |
the humanmind. and non-cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that moral concepts are real things. Non-
| cognitivists argue that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ havenoactual existence; they
| non-cognitivism Are matters of personal choice.
— thebeliefthai| moraltruths There is another way of looking at this divide. Non-cognitivists claim that ethical
concepts (such as good and bad) are simply subjective feelings or opinions. They
believe when you say ‘murder is bad’ you are expressing an opinion that killing
someoneis notintrinsically bad butit is disgusting to you. Therefore a non-cognitivist
would not be able to say that the statement ‘murderis bad’ is either true orfalse.
Onthe other hand, a cognitivist believes that moral concepts are real and as a result
would be able to say whetherthe statement ‘murderis bad’is true orfalse.
Since the ancient Greeks there has been a fundamental division between those who
||
|
| It is, hopefully, easy to see why non-cognitivists cannot say whethera thing is true orà c toe e 4 ee :
| _ » 4 false. For them, moralityis a matter of opinion. If things are matters of opinion, thenit‘7
l|
|
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
Non-cognitivists claim
that ethical statements
are simply subjective
feelings or opinions.
For a non-cognitivist,
when we say ‘murder
is bad’ we are
expressing an opinion
in the same way as if
we were to say ‘this
sunset is beautiful’.
is impossible to verify whetherthat opinionis true orfalse;it just is. Non-cognitivistsreject the idea that statements such as ‘Mother Teresa was a good person’, ‘The LakeDistrict is beautiful’ and even ‘That box is blue’ are true orfalse. All are matters ofopinion,of feelings. This is what philosopherscall a rejection of propositions.
The cognitivist, on the other hand, argues that such statements are propositions thatare based on empirical data. Moral, aesthetic and commonsense propositions arebased on empirical or sensory experiences. Theyare trueorfalse insofar as they canbe verified by empirical data. Non-cognitivists reject this link between empirical data
and proposition statements.
Key point
Cognitivism and non-cognitivism have their strengths and weaknesses. The mainstrength of cognitivism is that it takes seriously the existence of moral absolutes.It isargued that morality is too important to be regarded as simply a matter of personalopinion. It makes morality objective rather than subjective. The cognitivist goes on toassert that these moraltruths can be tested by humanreasonandlogic. Humanbeingsdo not simply observe the universe; their minds test their experiences. Cognitivistsargue that an important strengthof their thoughtis that moral claims canbetested.
Key terms
proposition —
a statement or
assertion that
expresses a
judgementor
opinion.
empirical —
based on
observation or
experience rather
than theory.
Sg
S_
°°
Understanding Religious Ethics
The non-cognitivist regards these strengths as fundamentally a misunderstanding of
ethics. Moral statements are not objectively real. The claim that ‘murderis wrong’ is
fundamentally different from the statementthat ‘Londonis the capital of the United
Kingdom’. Thelatter is a matteroffact; the formeris a matter of opinion. To denythis
difference is regarded by non-cognitivists as the fundamental flaw of the cognitivist
position. Non-cognitivists go on to argue that this fundamental flaw undermines
the other supposed strengths of cognitivism. Opinions cannot be logically tested or
subject to empirical research. They are simply matters of personal choice. The non-
cognitivist argues that this does not devalue moral statements. It simply recognizes
that subjective opinions are valuable in themselves. Non-cognitivists argue that the
statement ‘murder is wrong’ is not devaluedjust becauseit is an opinion.It is much
more likely to be devalued by the assertion thatit is an objective truth, which cannot
be proven one way or another.
Fromthiscriticism of the cognitivist approach, non-cognitivists claim that the primary
strength oftheir position is that it accepts the world asit is. Morality is simply a matter
of personal choice, which society then formulates into lawsfor the bettermentof the
majority’s personal preferences. This reveals anotherstrength in the non-cognitivist
approach. Non-cognitivism is not a rigid dogma. It allows for moral flexibility as
opinions develop and change. Yet this flexibility is not withoutits critics. Cognitivists
argue thatflexibility is in reality a chaotic state in whichtruths do not exist and where
moral absolutes change from day to day.
Ifa naturalist view of meta-ethics is taken, it might support normative ethical theories
suchas Natural Lawtheory orUtilitarianism. Bothare differentyet they start from the
same assumptions.Thefirst premise is that moral laws exist. The next is that they can
only be experienced and understood through an analysis of (a) the natural world or
(b) human nature.
A naturalist view of ethics argues that, once verified by nature, moral statements are
objectively true. Fora utilitarian, the statement ‘murderis wrong’ is true because the
person killed is harmed and this prevents his or her happiness. In Natural Law the
statement ‘murder is wrong’is true for different reasons, that is, because it prevents
the natural fulfilment of the individual. For Hume the statement ‘murderis wrong’ is
true since self-preservationis a central feature of humannature.In all cases the moral
proposition ‘murder is wrong’is non-negotiable. It is a universal moral law, subject only to whatis meant bythe word‘murder’. Next, nature reveals whyit is a moral law.
Principles, such as ‘murderis wrong’, are tested against these laws.
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
Both cognitivists and non-cognitivists oppose ethical naturalism. Non-cognitivists
argue that moral propositions do notactually exist. They use the naturalistic fallacy(which originated from Hume) to attack his own naturalism. Humesaid that it was
illogical to go from saying how something‘is’ to saying how something ‘ought’ to be.
Yet Humeis inconsistent. He affirms that human nature (whatis) is the only basis for
morality (what oughtto be). As a result, it is claimed, he is guilty of the naturalistic
fallacy. He has made the assumptionthat humannatureis the basis for moral decision-
making.
Non-cognitivists assert that it is not possible to draw moral laws from human nature
or the way the universe works, since moral laws are concepts whereas the universe isphysical. Strong cognitivists have concerns about the reductionismof naturalism. The
strong cognitivist believes that moral propositions do exist, but argues thatit is not
possible to reduce the concept of goodto a simplelaw, be that the Hedonic Calculusor Natural Law. Strong cognitivists reject the claim that there is a single, empirical
basis to morality.
Ethical intuitionism is an absolutist andstrong realist moral theory. This approachto
ethics wasfirst put forwardin the early twentieth century by the English philosophers
W.D. Ross (1877-1971) and G.E. Moore (1873-1958). Intuitionists believe that moral
norms have an objective existence that is independent of humanexperience. Morality
is intuitive. Moore, writing in his Principia Ethica, sumsit up this way:
We know what yellowis and can recognise it wheneverit is seen, but we cannot
actually define yellow. In the same way we know what good is. But that we
cannotactuallydefine it. . .(G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica, Cambridge University
Press, 1903)
According to intuitionism, when we say something is ‘good’ or‘bad’ we are referring
to properties that we cannot define. However, we intuitively know what they mean.
In the same way you do not have to experience a killing to knowthat ‘murderiswrong’. Nor are moral normsa result of the analysis of actual events. A moral norm,
such as ‘youshall not kill’, is determined without reference to any murders. It is
a matter ofbelief, which is then rationally analysed. The starting point is the self-
evident nature of moral truths.
Key terms
naturalistic
fallacy —the ideathat just
because nature
acts in acertain
way it does not
followthat this
is howthings
oughtto be.
intuitionism —
belief that ethical
propositions
are true orfalse
andknownbyintuition.
G.E. Moore argued
that we know
this buttercup is
yellow because we
recognize the colour
yellow when we
see it, even though
we cannot define
what ‘yellow’ is.
In the same way,
he argued, we
recognize goodness
whenwesee it.
Understanding Religious Ethics
According to ethical naturalism, the statement ‘murder is bad’ can be verified
by observing the act of murder and its consequences. For intuitionism, no such
analysis is needed; we know murderis bad through ourintuition.
To think about
Do humanbeings have an innate sense ofwhatis right and wrong?
Intuitionists believe that there are foundational moral principles, from which moral
laws develop. Rosscalled these foundational principles prima facie, meaning that on
the face ofit they are self-evidently true. The foundationalprinciplesare listedas:
1. beneficence (being generous or goodto others)
2. faithfulness in relationships
3. gratitude for favours done to you
4. justice
5. non-maleficence (not being hurtful to others)
6. promise-keeping
7. self-improvement.
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
How is it possible to discover what these core values are? The intuitionist arguesthat they are self-evident. Those opposed to the theory, however, dispute whetherhumanbeings have certain innate moral values. A recent academic study in the UKdemonstrated, for example, that the legal belief in a jury having a broadly similarunderstanding of the moral concept of honesty mightbe far from true. Amongthosequestionedless than half thoughtit dishonestfor a carer to persuade an old personto changehis or her will in favourofthe carer. Perhapsthere are no intrinsic moralvalues?
It can be arguedthat strengthsofthe intuitionist approachare:
1. Intuitionism is non-naturalistic. Morality is not dependenton the material world.Ethical principles are independentofactual events. One benefitofthis separation ofthe natural world from morality is that this theory is not guilty of the naturalisticfallacy. ,
2. It explains whydifferent societies share moral values, such as ‘murder is wrong’.3. It does justice to the fact that human beings have an innate moralsense, quite
independentof personal experience orcircumstance.4. It does not require a God as the source of absoluteethical principles.
Variouscriticisms of the intuitionist approach have been made. Theyare:
1. How do we know that wecan trust our intuition? Two people faced with thesame moraldilemmacould have differing intuitions about what to do. How couldwe decide which intuition is correct?
2. Thereis no link in intuitionism between whatis right and whata person oughtto do. The philosopher, J.L. Mackie (1917-1981), saw this as an importantcriticism.He arguesthat morality is not just about what a personbelieves intuitively is rightbutit is about doing something aboutit. Intuitionism states what the foundationalprinciples are but does not expect the moral agent to follow theseethical values.
mn
Key terms
logical
positivism —the belief
that the onlymeaningful
philosophical
problems are
thosewhichcan
be solvedby
logical analysis.
verificationprinciple —
statementsare
onlyvalidif theycanbe verified
ordeduced from
empirical data.
Understanding Religious Ethics
3. Intuitionists do not explain why intuition is universally applicable to ethics.
It is arguedthatthere is no intrinsic reason why humanintuition should be taken
as the basis of moral judgements. People have intuitions that it will rain tomorrow
but the weather forecast is not based on these intuitions. There are other human
instincts that are as commonas an intuitive sense of right or wrong. A feeling of
pain or pleasure is an example, as is the guilt complex. Many scholars argue that
Moore never adequately explained why one particular human experience should
form the sole basis for morality.
4. Moral intuitionists do mot take seriously the differences in morality that exist
from one society to another. It could be argued that ourintuitions are learnt from
the cultures that we live in, so our intuitions woulddiffer from society to society.
Emotivism is a non-cognitive ethical theory. It developedoutofthe logical positivism
that developed in Vienna in the early years of the twentieth century. A group of
philosophers,scientists and mathematicians, knownas the Vienna Circle, developed
a new philosophy. They rejected the absolutism and naturalism of the past and built
on the foundations of empiricism. From 1922 until 1938 the Vienna Circle brought
about a revolution in philosophy in the same way as expressionism, in the samecity,
was doing in art. The most important members of the movement were Rudolf Carnap
(1891-1970) and Moritz Schlick (1882-1936). Loosely attached to the Circle were
a numberof foreign philosophers. These included the British philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein and later AJ. Ayer.
Logical positivists believed that the only absolute truths were based on science.
Philosophy had to becomescientific rather than romantic. This was accompanied
by an interest in the minutiae of language; the importance of philosophy wasinits
ability to analyse words and argumentslogically. The Vienna Circle regardedits job
as the analysis of words, sentences and arguments to create philosophy for the age
of science and technology. Sentences convey information. This information needs
to be analysed and verified otherwise discussion becomes meaningless. Statements,
propositions, have to be based onfactual information. They also haveto be logically
coherent. The logical positivists believed that without these two principles any
statement wasnot only wrong;it was also meaningless.
Thelogical positivists therefore created a system that evaluated statements. This was
their verification principle. For statements to be true they hadeitherto be analytic or
206
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
synthetic in nature. In an analytic statement we can logically deduce from the wordsif it is true. A synthetic statementis onethat can be verified by analysingfacts.
f Leibniz sp oftruthsofreason an iths of fact. By tlmeantthat sometruths could be logically deduced from the very word (truths ofreason), whileothers are deduced through sensory experiences(truthsoffact).
An analytic statement,as the term suggests, does not need to be proved throughexperience. We can logically deduce from the wordsin the sentencethatit is true.Analytic statements can be mathematical statements or simple syllogisms. Hereis an example of a simple syllogism.
All bachelors (a) are single men (b).
This statement cannot be false since the meaningof(a) is explained by (b).
A synthetic statementis one that can be verified from analysing facts, for example‘Johnis a bachelor’.
Ifwe are certain that both these analytic and synthetic statementsare true, we canmake the following statements:
All bachelors are single men.
John is a bachelor.
ThereforeJohnis single.
Sinceit can be verified that John exists and thatthis particular Johnis a bachelor,it has to be true that heis single.
The logical positivists then analysed religious and moral language. They reached theconclusion that talk of God and goodness could not be verified, and therefore ethicalStatements are meaningless. Carnap in The LogicalStructure of the World, attacked thePremise upon whichreligion and morality are based. Carnaprejected the idea that thereis a divide between body and soul, mind and matter, and(in morality) the divide betweenwhatis and what oughtto be.Life is physical; there is no place for the metaphysical.
The Vienna Circle knew it had no need of God butit was painfully aware that moralgoodnesscould notbe as easily removed. They tried but failed to undermine morality.Wittgenstein wasoneofthefirst to realize the legitimacy ofethical claims. Humanbeings
Keyterms
analytic
statement —
a statement that
only requires the
words within it
to verify whether
itis true orfalse.
Forexample,
‘all bachelors
are single
men’ requires
simply anunderstanding
of the meaning
ofthe word
bachelor to verify
thestatement.
synthetic
statement -astatementthat
requires external
information,
usually empirical
data, to verify
whetherit is
true or false. For
example, ‘the
Battle of Hastings
took place in
1066’ requires
empirical
information from |
contemporary
documentsand
archaeological”evidence to verifythe statement.
Understanding Religious Ethics
need morals yet they are unverifiable. A moral
system has to exist but this creates an apparent
contradiction. Morality is necessary but it is not
verifiable.Ludwig Wittgenstein
(1889-1951)
was one of the
leadingproponents
of linguistic
philosophy. He was
an associate of
the Vienna Circle.
Helater rejected
the simplicity of
the Vienna Circle’s
dismissal ofethical
and religious
Sir Alfred Ayer
Sir Alfred Ayer’s (1910-1989) solution to the
problem of the unverifiable nature of moral
language is known as emotivism. It is sometimes
called the Hurrah-Boo theory since it argues
that morals are determined by people’s feelings
and opinions. Ayer said that when we use ethical
language weare expressing our emotions about an
issue. So when we say something is morally good
language. weare saying ‘hurrah’to it. Similarly when we say
something is wrong weare saying ‘boo’toit.
ForAyer, the claim ‘murderis wrong’ is not based on some objective moral absolute
Key term orprinciple. We are simply saying ‘I don’t like murder’, or when applied to the wider
community, ‘if murder became legal then I believe society would not survive’. The
emotivism— statement ‘murderis wrong’, Ayer argues, cannot be reduced to either an analytic
ike idea or synthetic statement. Thereforeit is not possible to justify the view that murderis
that moral either right or wrong.All the individual can say is that he or she does not like murder.
judgements are Simply put: ‘murderstinks!’
expressions ofthe moral agents Ayer develops this idea in Language, Truth and Logic. Here he argues that ethical
feelings rather statements are designed to get a response from the reader or hearer. He calls these
than statements responses:
of fact.. . ejaculations or commands which are designed toprovokethe readerto action
of a certain sort. (AJ. Ayer, ‘A Critique of Ethics’, Ethical Theory, Russ Shafer-
Landau (Ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2007)
Ayer's ideas are based onlogical positivism. Herejects the idea that ethical statements
have any objective meaning, as they are unverifiable. Yet, during World WarII, Ayer
began to have doubts aboutthe unverifiable nature of ethical statements. In 1946 he
_ completed a new edition of Language, Truth andLogic. This edition included a long
appendix that went back on someofhis earlier claims. Importantly, Ayer claimed that
manyethical statements contain elementsoffact. As a result, some ethical statements
are descriptive andtherefore verifiable while others are not. The statement‘stealing
is wrong’ is a matter of opinion and therefore non-verifiable. On the other hand, a
| statementsuch as‘you know that whenyoustole from that person you did wrong’is
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
capable ofverification through the experience of the person whostole. This subtle yetimportantdifference in Ayer’s thoughtallowed him to maintain his emotivist ethicalposition while, at the same time, accepting that there are facts in ethics. Ayer (likeWittgenstein and Hare) had experienced the enormity of the evils of World War uand wanted, therefore, to give more authority to ethical statements.
Charles L. Stevenson
In his book Ethics and Language the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson(1908-1979) agrees with Ayer that ethical statements express an emotional response.He arguesthatit is possible for peopleto differ in the way they respond, even thoughthey have the same end in mind. This can beillustrated. Two people hold similarviews about whethera waris tight or wrong. They do so onthe basis of a gut reactionto the events. Yet they have radically different methodsfor ending the conflict. Onewants the troops to be withdrawn immediately while the other argues for a plannedwithdrawal. Ayer’s views begin and end with an expression of revulsion. Stevensonbelievesit is necessary to go further.
Stevenson’s views allow emotivism to move beyond a mere shouting match ofOpinions, which he argues is precisely what Ayer's philosophy involves. Thischange allows Stevenson to analyse ethical propositions in a way that Ayer doesnot. Stevenson also believes that ethical statements contain elements of persuasion,They do not simply reflect a person's feelings. They also present a moral claim.When a person says “murderis wrong’they do not just mean ‘murderstinks’. Theyalso imply that the person to whom you are speaking should feel that it is wrongas well. Moral statements do not only expressfeelings of pleasure or outrage. Theyalso expect the recipient of the statementto share those feelings.
Strengths and weaknesses of emotivism
Emotivism is not withoutits strengths and weaknesses. The strengthsarethatit:
1. accepts the importance of the scientific approach to language. Words haveParticular meanings. In order to understand them they have empirically to be verified,It rejects therefore the abstract use of wordsofprevious philosophical discussion.
Understanding Religious Ethics
2. allows the development of a complex and sophisticated discussion of moral
language.This is demonstrated by the analysis of the statement ‘murderis wrong’.
It prevents ethicists regarding such statementsas self-evidently true.
3. assumesthat ethical statements are not the same as empirically verifiable
facts, which seems to manyto beself-evident.
4. stresses the importance of each individual’s moralfeelings.
However, there are problemsassociated with emotivism:
1. Ethical statements are not judged on the basis of the emotional response they
invoke in the hearer. They are judged on the claims they make. Therefore, as
the British philosopher G.J. Warnock (1923-1995) points out, to claim ‘murderis
wrong’is to make a factual statement which can be discussed and debated.If this
were notthe case then as emotions changed so would morality, causing an extreme
form of relativism and subjectivism.
2. The fact that moral statements often carry a tremendous weight of public and
private emotions does not meanthat these are moral.It is possible to feel oneis
right about something and yet be considered to be very wrong.
3. Just because you may have an emotion that something is wrong doesnotlogically
mean that other people should agree. There is a disconnection between,for
example, the statement that ‘murder is wrong’ and the implicit conclusion that
other people should notdoit. Schlick saw this disconnection even before Ayer had
completed his book.
4.It could be argued that language is not simply aboutverifiability. Sentences
should not be seen as the linguistic equivalent of arithmetical sums. Language is
muchricher and much more opaque thanscientific experiments or mathematical
numbers.
Richard Hare was one -of the most original moral philosophers of the twentieth
century. He moved beyondthe ideathat ethical statements are merely expressions of
ourfeelings, to say that moral language is prescriptive and tells us how we oughtto
act.
He developed an ethical theory knownasprescriptivism.It is an ethical system that
prescribes what a person should do and,like a doctor’s prescription,it will vary from
person to person. Consequently, when a personsays‘Youshall not murder’this is not
just an expression of personal revulsion at the thoughtofkilling. It also means that
everyone should follow this moral truth. This is the universalizability principle,
that when an individual prefers one thing rather than something else this implies
EA
Chapter 10: Meta-ethics
that this preference would be good for anybody. If x prefers to care fora sick person
rather than go to the pub,this implies that were x to be sick then he or she would
wish someoneto care for x in similar circumstances.
E Sana POS Fetent a
Hare makes the Golden Rule of Christianity: ‘In everything do to others as youwould have them do to you’ (Matthew 7:12) the basis of his prescriptivism. Heargues that if such moral preferences are universal it follows that they shouldbe obeyed. Yet Hare concedes that not everyone has thecritical ability or timeto calculate what he or she should do in a particular situation. Some humanbeings need morallaws to guide them. They havelimited critical powers to turnpreferences into actions. Those with morecritical powers can use moral laws asrules of thumb,to be used or not used in accordance with theircritical appraisalof moral preferences.
Hare had good reasonsto believe in the universal nature of morals. He servedin the army during World War II and spent three years as a prisoner of war inChangi prison and building the Burma-Thailandrailway. The brutality ofJ apanesetreatmentofprisoners ofwaraffected his attitude to morality. It was this experiencethat led him to develop a secularform of the Christian Golden Rule.
Prescriptivism asserts four basic ideas. They are:
1. that moral sentimentis not sufficient. The individual's morality must involve doingwhatis morally required.
2. that ethical action has to be consistent.It is importantinall situations to practise aconsistent morality.
3. that moralbelief must be kept in harmonywith others.
4. that the moral agent cannotbe hypocritical.
According to emotivism, when we would say ‘murder is bad’ we are expressingour feelings towards murder. According to prescriptivism, this statementis tellingus how we oughtto act.
a)
Understanding Religious Ethics |
Prescriptivism adds an appealing dimension to the idea that ethical statements are
expressions of opinion by saying that they also give directions as to how we ought
to act. Hare states that ethical statements are universalizable; however, this does
not mean that they are objective. There is no way to judge whether one person's
preferences should be followed over another person's. There is nothing to stop us
changing our preferences.
Practice exam question
‘Ethicists mean different things when they use the term ‘good’.’ Discuss.
A2 questionsarenotsplit into (a) and (b) type questions. You will need to demonstrate
both your knowledge of a subject and your evaluative skills in a single, in-depth
| response.
| This essay allows a wide-ranging examination of the various meta-ethical positions.
You could start by stating that thereis a difference between those theories that regard
| terms such as ‘good’ as objectively true and those that do not. Once you have done
| this you could examine the way in which the term is employed by a whole variety
| of different theories from cognitivist and anti-cognitivist positions. You may wish
| to look at what the word means by focusing on a particular statement, such as
‘generosity is good’. Focusing on a particular statement will lead you to examine a
variety ofdifferent interpretationsofthe term ‘good’, such as naturalism, emotivism
and intuitionism. You could evaluate the extent to which the statementis true. You
could mention any commonfactorsas well as differences of meaning.
Recommended