Philosophy Meta-Ethics A+ LevelQ&As
Moral Realism - ANS-There are mind independent, external moral properties and
facts. E.g. "Murder is wrong" is a moral fact because the act of murder has the property
of wrongness.
Cognitivism - ANS-Moral Judgements express cognitive mental states i.e. beliefs, aim to
describe reality and can be true or false.
Ethical naturalism - ANS-Moral properties are natural properties. So, "Murder is wrong"
expresses a belief that murder is wrong - where "wrong" refer to a natural property. Its a
reductionist theory: it says moral properties can be reduced to natural properties. These
properties exist and are independent. Utilitarianism is an example of a naturalist ethical
theory. It as "good" can be reduced to pleasure, and "bad" can be reduced to pain.
Natural properties are ordinary, physical properties. Pain and Pleasure, for example are
natural properties of the brain - a physical thing.
Problems with Ethical Naturalism - ANS-1) The Naturalistic Fallacy (Non-Cognitivism)
2) The is-ought-gap (Emotivism)
3) The verification Principle (Emotivism)
Ethical Non-Naturalism - ANS-Moral Properties are non-natural properties. So, "murder
is wrong" expresses a belief that murder is wrong, where wrong refers to a non-natural
property. Non-natural properties cannot be reduced to anything simpler. They're basic.
But these non-natural moral properties exist independently of minds.
Moore: The Naturalistic Fallacy - ANS-"Naturalistic Fallacy" the fallacy of equating
goodness with some natural Property. Main Arguments:
* Moral properties may be correlated with natural properties, but are not identical to
them. For example, having a heart is correlated with also having kidneys, but hearts and
kidneys are not the same as kidneys. Similarly, happiness may often accompany morally
good actions, but they are not the same thing.
* Moore's "open question" argument: If goodness and pleasure are the same thing, it
wouldn't make sense to ask "is pleasure good?", because it be like saying "is pleasure
pleasure?". But because the question "is pleasure good?" does make sense, this proves
that pleasure and good are not the same thing.
Reply to Moore's open question argument - ANS-It makes sense to ask "is water H20?"
Moral Realism - ANS-There are mind independent, external moral properties and
facts. E.g. "Murder is wrong" is a moral fact because the act of murder has the property
of wrongness.
Cognitivism - ANS-Moral Judgements express cognitive mental states i.e. beliefs, aim to
describe reality and can be true or false.
Ethical naturalism - ANS-Moral properties are natural properties. So, "Murder is wrong"
expresses a belief that murder is wrong - where "wrong" refer to a natural property. Its a
reductionist theory: it says moral properties can be reduced to natural properties. These
properties exist and are independent. Utilitarianism is an example of a naturalist ethical
theory. It as "good" can be reduced to pleasure, and "bad" can be reduced to pain.
Natural properties are ordinary, physical properties. Pain and Pleasure, for example are
natural properties of the brain - a physical thing.
Problems with Ethical Naturalism - ANS-1) The Naturalistic Fallacy (Non-Cognitivism)
2) The is-ought-gap (Emotivism)
3) The verification Principle (Emotivism)
Ethical Non-Naturalism - ANS-Moral Properties are non-natural properties. So, "murder
is wrong" expresses a belief that murder is wrong, where wrong refers to a non-natural
property. Non-natural properties cannot be reduced to anything simpler. They're basic.
But these non-natural moral properties exist independently of minds.
Moore: The Naturalistic Fallacy - ANS-"Naturalistic Fallacy" the fallacy of equating
goodness with some natural Property. Main Arguments:
* Moral properties may be correlated with natural properties, but are not identical to
them. For example, having a heart is correlated with also having kidneys, but hearts and
kidneys are not the same as kidneys. Similarly, happiness may often accompany morally
good actions, but they are not the same thing.
* Moore's "open question" argument: If goodness and pleasure are the same thing, it
wouldn't make sense to ask "is pleasure good?", because it be like saying "is pleasure
pleasure?". But because the question "is pleasure good?" does make sense, this proves
that pleasure and good are not the same thing.
Reply to Moore's open question argument - ANS-It makes sense to ask "is water H20?"
