Meta-Ethics Questions and Answers
What is meta-ethics? - ANS-• Meta-ethics is the attempt to understand the
metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological presuppositions and
commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice.
The sub-field of moral philosophy that focuses on issues regarding the fundamental
status and nature of morality.
meta ethics is the most abstract area of moral philosophy - it doesn't ask what acts, or
what kind of acts are good or bad, right or wrong, rather it asks about the nature of
goodness and badness - what is morally right or wrong
Thus, this means.... - ANS-Meta-Ethics doesn't attempt to tell us what is right or wrong
or how to act (which is the focus of normative ethics).
Meta ethics analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral terms such as
'good' and 'right'
What can metaethics be contrasted with? - ANS-it can be contrasted with normative
ethics - attempt to work out which actions are right/wrong
and descriptive ethics - the attempt to compare and describe moral behaviours.
In simple terms, meta-ethics is concerned with the question of what is the meaning
(if any) of goodness?
How is Meta-ethics very different to other ethical theories? - ANS-Its very different to
other ethical theories because, instead of trying to distinguish right from wrong, it looks
at the language we use to express morality.
Thus, meta ethics is all about language and asks what good/bad/right/wrong actually
mean
What are the significant issues surrounding Meta-ethics? - ANS-A significant issue
surrounding Meta ethics is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective
Some will argue that if 'good' has no objective meaning then it is meaningless and
should not be used in ethics.
,Similarly
, another issue is whether meta-ethics is cognitive (able to be proved) or non-cognitive
(not able to be proved)
Meta-ethics is so different to other ethical theories - SO what does this mean? -
ANS-Because meta ethics is so different to other ethical theories - you shouldn't really
compare it to others; theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are normative
ethics; whereas meta-ethics is not.
Thats why, for example Ross, criticises utilitarianism for being a single factor theory;
Ross is a meta-ethicists and can pretty much get away with attacking normative ethics
Key Scholars linked to meta ethics - ANS-JB and J S Mill - ethical naturalism
David Hume = Is ought Criticism
G.E Moore = Naturalistic fallacy and Intutionism
A.J Ayer = logical positivism
J.L Mackie = non cognitivist and moral anti -realists
Outline subjectivity - Is morality subjective or objective? - ANS-if a moral opinion is
independent of external facts then it is essentially internal and is to do with how we feel
about an ethical issue - It is therefore SUBJECTIVE
Criticism of subjectivism - ANS-Such a view negates ethical debate, since everything
becomes 'a matter of opinion' in its hard form it denies the validity of ethical arguments
and theories
Outline objectivity - is morality subjective or objective? - ANS-An objective fact is related
to how things actually are in the real world. E.G. "the chair is blue" - this is true
irrespective of how i feel about it, or even whether it exits at all. and is true for everyone
- if moral values are objective then they are similar true for everyone
Criticism of objectivity - ANS-objective moral judgements are often criticised as being
illusory (not real). Empiricists argue that there is no objective authority - there is nothing
that can be tested or experimented on
, Thus... - ANS-Whether morality deals with facts or opinion is a crucial issue.
Key to this is whether we can place goodness in an objective category, since it is clearly
open to so many different interpretations
What is moral absolutism? - ANS-Moral absolutism relates to how things are in the real
world, where ethical principles can be established a priori (without experience). Thus
facts are true irrespective of our opinion or the outcome. Therefore moral statements
can in themselves be true.
- moral judgements are either true or false depending on the facts of the world
Criticism of Moral absolutism? - ANS-How can we reach a consensus as to what is
'good' that we can be sure is not a subjective opinion - however many people may
support it?
What is moral relativism? - ANS-It is the belief that what determines good or bad are
grounded in social custom and therefore we cannot reach a consensus on objective
morality.
Moral judgements are true or false relative to the context
Moral relativism = moral
judgements differ from person to person.
Cultural relativism = Moral judgements vary from culture to culture
Criticism of moral relativism - ANS-Just because one group in society decides what
good is , why should all accept it?
In simple terms - moral absolutism and moral relativism - ANS-A = moral statements
can be established a priori, judgements are true or false, depending on the facts of the
world
R = what determines good or bad are grounded in social custom - therefore we cannot
reach a consensus on objective morality
What is moral realism and anti realism? - ANS-Perhaps the most biggest controversy in
meta-ethics = which divides moral realists and anti realists
What is meta-ethics? - ANS-• Meta-ethics is the attempt to understand the
metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological presuppositions and
commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice.
The sub-field of moral philosophy that focuses on issues regarding the fundamental
status and nature of morality.
meta ethics is the most abstract area of moral philosophy - it doesn't ask what acts, or
what kind of acts are good or bad, right or wrong, rather it asks about the nature of
goodness and badness - what is morally right or wrong
Thus, this means.... - ANS-Meta-Ethics doesn't attempt to tell us what is right or wrong
or how to act (which is the focus of normative ethics).
Meta ethics analyses the reasoning behind ethical language and moral terms such as
'good' and 'right'
What can metaethics be contrasted with? - ANS-it can be contrasted with normative
ethics - attempt to work out which actions are right/wrong
and descriptive ethics - the attempt to compare and describe moral behaviours.
In simple terms, meta-ethics is concerned with the question of what is the meaning
(if any) of goodness?
How is Meta-ethics very different to other ethical theories? - ANS-Its very different to
other ethical theories because, instead of trying to distinguish right from wrong, it looks
at the language we use to express morality.
Thus, meta ethics is all about language and asks what good/bad/right/wrong actually
mean
What are the significant issues surrounding Meta-ethics? - ANS-A significant issue
surrounding Meta ethics is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective
Some will argue that if 'good' has no objective meaning then it is meaningless and
should not be used in ethics.
,Similarly
, another issue is whether meta-ethics is cognitive (able to be proved) or non-cognitive
(not able to be proved)
Meta-ethics is so different to other ethical theories - SO what does this mean? -
ANS-Because meta ethics is so different to other ethical theories - you shouldn't really
compare it to others; theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are normative
ethics; whereas meta-ethics is not.
Thats why, for example Ross, criticises utilitarianism for being a single factor theory;
Ross is a meta-ethicists and can pretty much get away with attacking normative ethics
Key Scholars linked to meta ethics - ANS-JB and J S Mill - ethical naturalism
David Hume = Is ought Criticism
G.E Moore = Naturalistic fallacy and Intutionism
A.J Ayer = logical positivism
J.L Mackie = non cognitivist and moral anti -realists
Outline subjectivity - Is morality subjective or objective? - ANS-if a moral opinion is
independent of external facts then it is essentially internal and is to do with how we feel
about an ethical issue - It is therefore SUBJECTIVE
Criticism of subjectivism - ANS-Such a view negates ethical debate, since everything
becomes 'a matter of opinion' in its hard form it denies the validity of ethical arguments
and theories
Outline objectivity - is morality subjective or objective? - ANS-An objective fact is related
to how things actually are in the real world. E.G. "the chair is blue" - this is true
irrespective of how i feel about it, or even whether it exits at all. and is true for everyone
- if moral values are objective then they are similar true for everyone
Criticism of objectivity - ANS-objective moral judgements are often criticised as being
illusory (not real). Empiricists argue that there is no objective authority - there is nothing
that can be tested or experimented on
, Thus... - ANS-Whether morality deals with facts or opinion is a crucial issue.
Key to this is whether we can place goodness in an objective category, since it is clearly
open to so many different interpretations
What is moral absolutism? - ANS-Moral absolutism relates to how things are in the real
world, where ethical principles can be established a priori (without experience). Thus
facts are true irrespective of our opinion or the outcome. Therefore moral statements
can in themselves be true.
- moral judgements are either true or false depending on the facts of the world
Criticism of Moral absolutism? - ANS-How can we reach a consensus as to what is
'good' that we can be sure is not a subjective opinion - however many people may
support it?
What is moral relativism? - ANS-It is the belief that what determines good or bad are
grounded in social custom and therefore we cannot reach a consensus on objective
morality.
Moral judgements are true or false relative to the context
Moral relativism = moral
judgements differ from person to person.
Cultural relativism = Moral judgements vary from culture to culture
Criticism of moral relativism - ANS-Just because one group in society decides what
good is , why should all accept it?
In simple terms - moral absolutism and moral relativism - ANS-A = moral statements
can be established a priori, judgements are true or false, depending on the facts of the
world
R = what determines good or bad are grounded in social custom - therefore we cannot
reach a consensus on objective morality
What is moral realism and anti realism? - ANS-Perhaps the most biggest controversy in
meta-ethics = which divides moral realists and anti realists
