OCR RS A Level Meta Ethics

Morals = fixed, unchanging truths everyone should always follow

Moral truths not fixed + not absolute. What is right changes according circumstance

Statements which = either fully true or fully false

Statements not concerned with facts of world thus can’t be true or false

good = natural quality, can be observed + exists independently of humans

That moral evils and moral goodness =objective facts - fixed + can’t change.

Something that causes happiness can be defined as 'good'

There are absolute objective facts about morality that we can observe through natural law. We can observe eternal law through society

Morals are observable in social order - your moral duty comes from the place you hold in society

Natural law - by observing nature and natural inclinations, one can see that there is a way of life that should be followed + objective facts about morality

Doing good = bringing max pleasure to max people

It removes all ambiguity from moral decision making, thus lets people to make clear decisions

'You cannot go from an is to ought'

inductive leap + should be another premise saying why it’s a good thing

Slavery was once legal and made people happy - If people followed Hedonic Naturalism then morally slavery would be good. Yet, we know that slavery is wrong thus Naturalistic argument is flawed

Moral language implicitly includes understanding of obligation, e.g. a promise

once can move from an is to an ought when moral language is concerned

Error of assuming 'good' is the same as any other quality

People should be able to ask open questions in ethics, not closed

The question of whether something that gives pleasure can be considered as good should be an open question

Naturalism makes it a closed question

Good cannot be the same as pleasure because pleasure can be derived from pain e.g Sadistic guard - which is not morally good

• Influenced by Aristotle's idea that we can observe humans who act considerate of certain values through their actions

• Foot argues these 'virtues' are what can be seen as 'good' as it can be observed that when people are not virtuous they go to either extreme and produces bad outcomes

• Therefore, something in moderation and that is a virtue is good meaning that good can be linked to another quality

Ethical judgements can exist independently of human beings and is knowable through non-sensory intuition

A Statement that can be broken down into different qualities E.g, A horse can be broken down to - a mammal, an animal and it has 4 legs

Can not be broken down into different qualities E.g. Good

• Naturalism makes good a complex notion

• Good is a simple notion and cannot be broken down

• Ethical language is 'Sui Generis' - is of its own kind

• If he is asked 'what is good?' his answer will be 'good is good, and that is the end of the matter'

• If he is then asked how to define it, his response will be that it cannot be defined and that is all there is to say about it

• Goodness is good within itself, however our awareness or appreciation of this cannot be defined because it is intuitive

• Not only do we know intuitively what is good, but because of this intuition we have a moral obligation to do that thing

• E.g, we know that adultery is wrong, so it is our moral obligation not to have an affair

• We know by intuition which of our moral obligations are more important then the others

• If we have moral obligations that we must do, what happens when we have conflicting obligations E.g a soldier drafted for war, but has a sick mother

• the fact that we would have these conflicting duties in the first place shows that there is a lack of intuitive knowledge that we have

intrinsically good is that which is 'good apart from anything it produces' - meaning it is good within itself and not through it's outcome

• There are prima facie duties

• when you are in the moment, you will know which duty to prioritise over others

• You would know which to chose in the moment even if you are torn.

Intuitionism makes the mistake of assuming us acting with our morals is due to our intuition. However, we really don't know the cause, it could be due to our emotion instead For example, on the topic of same-sex marriage, people's view on whether it is right or wrong, can be based on their emotion

What may appear on the surface to be a reasonable argument, is really just an appeal to one's emotion

• Language is only meaningful if it aligns with the criteria of the verification principle

• Moral and ethical statements are based off emotions and therefore meaningless

• E.g. the statement 'murder is wrong' is really someone saying they disagree with murder because of emotions

1. An analytical statement such as a mathematical or a tautology (e.g 'all bachelors are unmarried men')

2. A synthetic statement that can be empirically verified (e.g. 'it is raining today)

The boo/hoorah theory

Ayer

• When people make moral statements, they are simply saying their disapproval (boo) and their approval (hoorah)

• Moral statements are simply expressions of our feelings not facts -Adding an ethical symbol such as 'wrong' after a statement does not verify the factual content of the statement

• It only indicates our moral disapproval of the action and attempts to arouse the approval of others

'Ethical judgement has a quasi-imperative force' 'Permits you to begin to influence, to modify his interests' - our ethical judgements aim to persuade others

• With matters of taste and preference we can 'agree to disagree'

• However, in matters of morality, we seek to persuade offers to adopt our viewpoints about the issue as we have a stronger emotional tie to the subject

• There is a dynamic and perspective element to our ethical language

Emotivism is a form of reductionism: It simply reduces moral statements to our emotions, however there is a lot more to it

'That it is a bad thing to be tortured or starved, humiliation or hurt, is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact'

• To reduce morality to our emotion is wrong they are simply just wrong

• Introducing a heroin addiction to your child is morally wrong and anyone who disagrees as not followed the argument or doesn't truly understand what morally wrong means

• Morality is grounded in human needs - naturalistic quality that determines goodness, is humans wants and needs

• Fails to differentiate between two statements of disapproval despite the two statements being completely different in terms of morality

• Gives the example of 'dropping litter is wrong' and 'racism is wrong'

• Although one may be seen as wrong it is more of a big disapproval, however Racism is to an extreme where it is not simply a disproval, there shouldn't be a comparison.