AS Religious Ethics Revision

1. AS Religious Ethics Revision Meta-Ethics

2. Three Types of Ethics • Meta-Ethics – examines the language of ethics and moral reasoning. • Normative Ethics – seeks to set the content (required actions) of moral behaviour. • Descriptive Ethics – statistics and ethical facts

3. Meta - Ethics • Examines ethical language such as ‘good’, ‘ought’ and ‘wrong’. In other words, what do we mean when we call something ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

4. Normative Ethics • Tries to provide a guide for moral behaviour. In seeks to answer the question “What ought I do in situation x?” The moral theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative ethics.

5. BACKGROUND TO META-ETHICS • A essential factor in ethical problems is whether they are either SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE

6. Are they based on personal opinion or on external facts?

7. “The 2003-2004 Norwich City side is the best of all time.” Subjective (an OPINION – that can’t be tested) “The sun is shining” Objective (a FACT – that can be tested)

8. Some technical terms If a thing is objective, then it is COGNITIVE it can be known and proved

9. If a thing is subjective, then it is NON-COGNITIVE It can’t be proven

10. With it so far? Stop chatting at the back and pay attention to me!

11. Cognitive ethical language Makes propositions that (it claims) can be known to be either true or false.

12. SUCH AS • Killing people is wrong • Be faithful to your partner • Never tell a lie

13. Why? • A cognivtist would claim that we can ‘prove’ such statements to be true. • TASK: How could you ‘prove’ that these things are bad, immoral, wicked or evil?

14. Killing people is wrong • Be faithful to your partner • Never tell a lie

15. Example • Kant was a COGNITIVE ethicist • WHY? • Because he believed that you could ‘prove’ how people ought to behave. • HOW? • The Good Will, reason, & universalisablity

16. On the other hand

17. Non-cognitive ethical language • Claims that in ethics we aren’t dealing with things that are resolved by ascertaining the validity or falsification of a statement. To put it another way YOU CAN’T PROVE IT!

18. Meta-ethics divides into two parts: • COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORY • NON-COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORY

19. COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORY • ETHICAL NATURALISM • INTUITIONISM

20. NON-COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORY • LOGICAL POSITIVISTS • EMOTIVISM • PRESCRIPTIVISM

21. ETHICAL NATURALISM • Treats ethical statements just the same as non-ethical statement – propositions that can be proved or disproved. • For example: • The statement “acid turns litmus paper red” is true because it can be established using evidence. • The statement “murder is wrong” is also true. If we look at the evidence, we see that generally murder makes people unhappy, it is wrong to make people unhappy therefore murder is wrong.

22. CRITICISM OF ETHICAL NATURALISM • G. E. Moore (Principa Ethica) • The Naturalistic Fallacy • Moral statements can’t be verified (proved) using empirical evidence • You can’t turn an ‘is’ – a fact – into an ‘ought’ – what we ought to do

23. Example • The worldISin a terrible state – pollution so bad budgies are falling off their perches, rain forests the size of Wales disappear every week just to keep Yanks in burgers, nuclear waste being left all over the place – any terrorist could get their hands on it! • The worldISin such a terrible state, we OUGHT to do something about it • Therefore pollution, deforestation & nuclear waste AREWRONG (or evil or bad – pick your own moral term!) and we OUGHT to do something about them.

24. G. E. Moore’s Intuitionism • In place of Ethical Naturalism,Moore proposed INTUITIONISM. He said that ‘good’ is indefinable:

25. “We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but we cannot actually define it.”

26. For Moore, ‘Good’ is indefinable; there are objective moral truths; the basic moral truths are self evident to the mature mind.

27. Henry Sidgewick & Intuitionism • Believed that there were three self-evident moral truths or principles: • Prudence – defer an immediate pleasure for a greater pleasure in the future (e.g. saving up money) • Justice – you should not put your own interests in front of those of the community • Benevolence – care for those in need

28. F. H. Bradley &Intuitionism • We discover moral obligation from society. • Moral obligation is called the concrete universal. • Moral activity = find your position in society and do your duties. • “Don’t question society”

29. H. A. Prichard & Intuitionism • Two types of thinking: • General thinking – a moral decision is made relative to the situation at hand • Moral thinking – rested on immediate intuition and not reason – this is what indicates the right thing to do.

30. H. A. Prichard (Cont) • Some have clearer moral intuition that others because their moral thinking has been further developed. This accounts for differences in moral actions. • BUT, he didn’t tell us how to ascertain who has the clearer intuition.

31. W. D. Ross & Intuition • Greatly influenced by Moore and Prichard • But went further and said: • ‘Right’ and ‘obligatory’ are as indefinable as ‘good’

32. W. D. Ross (Cont) • There are two elements in determining what is right: • The factual situation • How that situation is viewed

33. W. D. Ross (Cont) The right (good) act is an act which the agent thinks is right in the situation as the agent thinks it is

34. W. D. Ross (Cont) • WHY? • Because the subjective evaluation of the situation leads to a direct form of individual intuition to access right conduct.

35. But! • Aquinas has already said this centuries earlier in a slightly different form. • He said “Let conscience be your guide” • Which leads us very neatly into. . . . . . . .

36. CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM • How can we be sure that intuitions are correct? Are they just a gut feeling? Voice of God? Conscience? Neurosis? Paranoia?

37. CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM • People who use intuition and those who use reason may reach different conclusions and there is no obvious way to resolve their differences.

38. CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM • Intuited knowledge owes more to social background than any firm basis for morality ~ at least according to Bradley.

39. CRITICISM OF INTUITIONISM • According to the logical positivists, since individuals’ intuitions cannot be tested, they are meaningless.

40. And now for something completely different. . . • INTRODUCING (for your pleasure and amusement) . . . THE LOGICAL POSITIVISTS

41. NON COGNITIVIST ETHICAL THEORIES • Rejected the idea of certain knowledge about good and bad • Statements only have meaning if they can be tested • Moral statements cannot be tested so logically therefore, they have no meaning

42. EMOTIVISM • A. J. Ayer • ‘Boo Hurrah Theory’ • Moral statements only express personal feelings • ‘Abortion is wrong” = ‘I don’t like abortion.’ • moral statements are arbitrary and meaningless.

43. EMOTIVISM • C. L. Stevenson modified Ayer’s ideas. • Ethical statements = expressions of attitude and opinion • Not arbitrary BUT • based on beliefs about the world, the ways it should work, worldly experiences and what we want it to be.

44. CRITICISMS OF EMOTIVISM • How can you judge between two people’s moral opinions? • Isn’t it just the same as relativism?

45. CRITICISMS OF EMOTIVISM • It prescribes complete freedom of action because everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Everyone is free to do what they choose, regardless of the opinion of others.

46. PRESCRIPTIVISM • R. H. Hare • agrees with Ayer - moral statements are expressions of opinion • But also prescribing our opinions to others. • “Murder is wrong” = “You ought not to murder and neither should I”

47. CRITICISMS OF PRESCRIPTIVISM Moral judgements are founded on prescriptions and have no claim to objective truth.

48. In other words • We agree the rules and try and stick to them (a sort or ethical gentleman’s agreement!)

49. CRITICISMS OF PRESCRIPTIVISM Doesn’t specify why I should follow your rules rather than mine! (And what if I don’t like the rules - why should I follow them at all - lacks ethical authority!)

50. The End Now just pass the exam!