Summary Ethical Language / Meta Ethics - RS A Level Ethics Paper 2
12 views 0 purchase
Course
Unit 10 - Ethical language (09RS02)
Institution
PEARSON (PEARSON)
Detailed notes according to specification on section 4 of RS Paper 2 on Ethical Language
Includes information on:
4.1 (Cognitive and non-cognitive uses of language, realism and anti-realism, language as factual or symbolic, the nature of ethical assertions as absolutist or relative, ethical nat...
Meta Ethics (“Beyond Ethics”)
a) Cognitive and non-cognitive uses of language, realism and anti-realism, language as factual or
symbolic, the nature of ethical assertions as absolutist or relative, ethical naturalism, the naturalistic
fallacy, the is–ought gap, the problem of the open question, ethical non-naturalism, intuitionism,
prescriptivism.
b) Emotivism, the influence of the logical positivism on emotivist theories of ethics, ethical language
as functional and persuasive. Developments of the emotivist approach and criticism of it.
With reference to the ideas of G E Moore and A J Ayer.
Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism
Cognitivism - moral truths exist independently of our mind; moral judgements can be
true/false and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ correspond to facts in the world
Non-Cognitivism - moral truths are non-existent, perceptions of moral facts are simply
subjective emotional responses
Realism vs Anti-Realism
Realism - moral properties exist in the world; there is a moral reality
Anti-Realism - no moral properties and no moral reality
Ethical Naturalism:
Naturalism vs Non-Naturalism
Naturalism: ‘good’ is an empirically discoverable natural property
Non-naturalism: Ethical terms cannot be defined by natural terms
(good ≠ pleasure)
Associated with J.S. Mill, who defines moral ‘good’ under the utilitarian principle of causing the most
pleasure - ‘the end of our desires is happiness, which benefits each person, and as society is a sum of
individual interests, general happiness is a good for this sum of interests (principle of utility), so Good
is happiness
- Bridges fact/value distinction in assuming pleasure and happiness are Good
Strengths of Ethical Naturalism:
- Accounts for moral feelings when outrage is felt - pain suggests intrinsic moral wrongness of
an action
- Accounts for moral disagreements
- Effective cognitivist theory in explaining the use of moral language: moral judgements not
simply expressions of opinion but claim true facts about world
Hume’s Is/Ought Gap (Fact/Value Gap):
‘you cannot make a value judgement from a factual observation.’
Example: Dennis is a puppy with muddy paws. The Sofa is clean and Dennis will spread mud.
Therefore he ought not to be allowed on the sofa.
- passing inductive value judgements is fallacious, unless empirically verifiable
- You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” – “to define an ethical judgement as a statement of
fact is an error”. Saying “he has stolen my money” is not equivalent to saying “you ought not
to steal”.
, Weaknesses of Ethical Naturalism:
G.E. Moore - Non-naturalist Cognitivist (unlike Ayer and Stevenson)
believes that goodness can be known (cognitively), but not by a posteriori sense experience
We cannot find natural truths in properties; they are a priori/non-definable properties
Principia Ethica: “My objections to Naturalism are that it offers no reason at all, for any ethical
principle whatever; and in this it already fails to satisfy the requirements of Ethics, as a scientific
study. But in the second place I contend that, though it gives a reason for no ethical principle, it is the
cause of the acceptance of false principles-it deludes the mind into accepting ethical principles, which
are false; and in this it is contrary to every aim of Ethics.”
Moore’s Open Question Argument
States the claim ‘Is Good pleasure?’ would be superfluous if reason would naturally lead to assent to
this question (making it a closed question) - as this is a debated topic, Mill’s definition must be
misleading
Premise 1: Good = N (Pleasure)
Premise 2: If X = N then X = Good
Premise 3: “Is X good?” = Meaningless question
- If pleasure is always good (if II premises are accepted) inquiring about goodness is
meaningless
Premise 4: “Is X good?” ≠ Meaningless as absolute overlap between
good/pleasure isn’t clear, is instead an “Open Question” (no conceptual
confusion, genuine question)
Premise 5: X ≠ Good (not exactly equivalent, as the question would else
be superfluous)
Premise 6: Good ≠ N
Conclusion: Naturalist Moral Realism is false
Leads Moore to recognising the naturalistic fallacy: when attempts are made to define non-natural
objects, such as the word ‘good’, in terms of some natural quality (‘pleasure’)
Ayer argues if we can still ask the question “is it good?” after asking “is it pleasurable?”, must mean
goodness or badness is something other than the pleasure or pain produced
Criticisms:
- ‘Begging the question’ assumes conclusion of argument during premises (Premise 4)
- Should have set up open question more explicitly and intentionally
- Conclusion is in included in Premise 4 - structure is insufficient
- ‘Good’ can’t be defined as a simple concept as it is not reducible to an empirical value
- If ‘good’ is a distinct value known through intuition, why do moral discussions exist?
- Nietzsche: views on morals differ (‘ethical colorblindness’) ??? perspective bias
- Intuition - legitimacy questionable
Intuitionism:
Good is a simple concept knowable through intuition - cannot be explained, but recognised
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sunn1es. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.57. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
