1 / 30

META-ETHICS

META-ETHICS. Non-cognitive theories: EMOTIVISM and PRESCRIPTIVISM. Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture. Abortion Gay marriage Capital punishment Genetically modified food Legalisation of marijuana.

jutecht
Download Presentation

META-ETHICS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. META-ETHICS Non-cognitive theories: EMOTIVISM and PRESCRIPTIVISM

  2. Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture • Abortion • Gay marriage • Capital punishment • Genetically modified food • Legalisation of marijuana

  3. Moral disagreement seems to be even more widespread between different cultures (& historical periods) • Slavery • Cannibalism • Female “circumcision” • The use of terrorism for political ends…

  4. Suttee (or Sati)

  5. People argue about moral issues • In a moral argument, we often give people reasons aimed at persuading them that our own position is correct and that their position is incorrect. • A different sort of case: chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream Chocolate ice cream tastes better Nope, it’s vanilla all the way

  6. Intervention • We recognise that some moral issues are very complex and difficult, and that our view on those issues might be mistaken. • On other issues, we are confident that our own views are correct and that people who do not share our views are mistaken. Sometimes we are even prepared to try to stop people acting on moral views that we take to be mistaken. • Examples: suttee & the use of terrorism

  7. Our Central question: Is Morality “Objective”? • About 65 million years ago an asteroid collided with the earth, and this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. • There is a prime number between 123,456 and 654,321. • All the shots fired at John F. Kennedy the day he was killed were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. • Saddam Hussein was executed • On Thursday, March 27th 2008, Mr. Bennett wore odd socks during his philosophy class.

  8. “Objective” • Note two things about these sentences: • Each of these sentences is either true or false. • The truth or falsity of these sentences does not depend at all on who makes the claim, when the claim is made or where the claim is made. • When a sentence has these properties, we’ll say that it makes an objective claim.

  9. Some sentences are not “objective” • Example of a sentence that isn’t true or false: • “Please pass the ketchup.” • “Go to hell!”

  10. Some sentences are not “objective” • Examples of a sentences whose truth depends on who makes them or when / where they are made: • “I’m the oldest person in this room.” • “It’s raining.” I’m the oldest I’m the oldest

  11. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • The Appeal: It would make sense of the fact that we often talk and act as though moral claims are correct or incorrect, and that we sometimes seem to think that people (including people in different cultures) have moral views which are mistaken. No! Capital punishment is always wrong. Capital punishment is right (in some cases).

  12. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • The Puzzles • Metaphysics: If some moral claims are true, then there must be facts that make them true. What could these facts possibly be?

  13. The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective • Epistemology: How can we know which moral claims are true? Is abortion morally permissible?

  14. Emotivism • A moral theory that suggests that when we say something is wrong, we are merely expressing an emotional reaction to a certain set of events or facts. • There are no ‘facts’ about what we say morally, we’re just expressing an emotional preference.

  15. Emotivism • The distinction between asserting you have a feeling and expressing that feeling. • Examples • “I am disgusted by your behavior.” vs.  • “I am in severe pain.” vs. “Ouch!!!!!!” • “I am sexually aroused.” vs. …. • Assertions are either true or false; expressions of feelings are not.

  16. Emotivism • The central idea of Emotivism is that, while moral claims look like assertions, they are actually expressions of feeling. • Thus Emotivism is sometimes described as The “Rah!! Boo!!” Theory. Abortion is morally wrong! Abortion…grrr!

  17. Emotivism Gay people ought to be allowed to get married. Gay marriage… yeah!! =

  18. Emotivism and moral ‘reasoning’ • Question: according to Emotivism, what’s going on when you try to persuade someone to have the same moral attitude as you? Abortion is morally wrong! It’s killing an innocent human being, it’s murder…

  19. Emotivism and moral reasoning • Unlike some other emotive expressions, the emotive expressions used in ethical claims have a tendency to have a persuasive or “magnetic” effect on listeners – perhaps because of childhood conditioning. Abortion.. Grr! Eating ice cream out of the tub.. Ew.

  20. Emotivism, again • So a fuller account of the meaning of a moral sentence might be: Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude. Abortion is morally wrong! = Abortion… . Please share this attitude. or,=

  21. Advantages of Emotivism • Captures the link between ethics and emotions. Abortion is morally wrong!

  22. Advantages of emotivism • Emotivism can explain moral disagreement: if you think abortion is morally OK and I think it is morally wrong, then: • It’s not that one of us has a false belief, but • our desires conflict with one another. • Rachels’ example: “I favor gun-control legislation, and you are opposed to it”

  23. Emotivism and objectivity Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude. Abortion is morally wrong! = Abortion… . Please share this attitude. or,=

  24. Disadvantages of Emotivism • If Emotivism is correct, then morality is not objective, thus • it makes no sense to say that other people’s moral views are mistaken • nor does it make any sense to say that our own previous moral views were mistaken. No it isn’t. Abortion… Grrr! ???

  25. Disadvantages of Emotivism THAT’S NOT TRUE! Killing Jews is morally OK.

  26. Disadvantages of Emotivism • The Emotivist account of moral argument and moral deliberation does not distinguish between moral arguments that (A) invoke false factual claims, vs (B) invoke true factual claims. • But we tend to think that moral attitudes formed under the (b) conditions are better justified than those formed under the (a) conditions.

  27. Using false factual claims to influence emotions Capital punishment is right. But 10% of people jailed for murder are later found innocent. But it’s cheaper to jail someone for life than try them for the death sentence. Capital punishment is right.

  28. Appealing to personal interest to influence emotions Abortion is wrong. If you say that, your sister is immoral. An unwanted baby wreck’s the mother’s life. Abortion is wrong.

  29. Relying on abnormal psychological states to influence emotions Capital punishment is wrong. But that b******d murdered your father! But ‘an eye for an eye’ seems to be a good principle of justice, doesn’t it? Capital punishment is wrong.

  30. Prescriptivism • In groups of three/ four, read the handout on PRESCRIPTIVISM and try to answer the questions on the hand out. • Be prepared for an Apprentice-style grilling Afterwards…

More Related