META-ETHICS

1
META-ETHICS
2
Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our
culture

• Abortion
• Gay marriage
• Capital punishment
• Genetically modified food
• Legalization 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, its vanilla all the way
6
Intervention

• We recognize 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
Normative Ethics vs. Meta- or Critical Ethics

• Normative Ethics is the branch of philosophical
  inquiry that tries to answer substantive moral
  questions like
• Should abortion be legal?
• Should capital punishment be abolished?
• Is gay sex immoral?

8
Meta-ethics

• Meta- or Critical Ethics does not try to resolve
  moral disputes or to say what we should do.
  Rather, it tries to answer questions like
• What do moral claims mean?
• How can moral claims be justified?
• Are there correct and incorrect (true false)
  answers to moral questions? If so, how is this
  possible?
• Is there one set of moral principles that
  everyone should follow? Or do different
  principles apply to people in different cultures?

9
Ethical Language

• Before anyone can begin to establish what is good
  or bad moral behaviour, we need to establish if
  we can define these words.
• The branch of moral philosophy which deals with
  this is meta-ethics which asks what do words
  such as good/ bad/ right/ wrong actually mean.

10
Good/ Ought

• The word good has many meanings and most of them
  are not used in a moral context
• e.g. My computer is good it fulfils the task I
  want it to.
• In the same way ought is used in different
  contexts
• e.g. Teachers ought to be kind to their
  students.

11
Subjective/ Objective

• A key factor in all of this is whether ethical
  dilemmas are subjective or objective.
• Are they based on personal preference or on
  external facts?
• If moral values are objective then they are true
  for everyone.
• If moral values are subjective then there can
  legitimately be differences of opinion about how
  to act.

12
Cognitive/ Non-Cognitive

• If morality is objective then it is also
  cognitive cognitive language deals with making
  propositions about things which can be known and
  therefore proved true or false Propositional
  View.
• If morality is subjective then it is also
  non-cognitive it deals with matters which are
  not simply resolved by proving they are true or
  false Non-Propositional view.

13
Subjective/ Objective

• A key factor in all of this is whether ethical
  dilemmas are subjective or objective.
• Are they based on personal preference or on
  external facts?
• If moral values are objective then they are true
  for everyone.
• If moral values are subjective then there can
  legitimately be differences of opinion about how
  to act.

14
Meaning?

• One main question within meta-ethics is
• Can ethical language have any meaning?
• If we are unclear about the nature and meaning of
  words, how can we make authoritative claims about
  how people should act?

15
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 will be executed before Jan. 1,
  2009.
• On Wednesday, 5th of November, 2008, Mr. Thirkill
  wore odd socks during his Philosophy class.

16
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, well say
  that it makes an objective claim.

17
Some sentences are not objective

• Example of a sentence that isnt true or false
• Please pass the ketchup.
• Go to hell!

18
Some sentences are not objective

• Examples of a sentences whose truth depends on
  who makes them or when / where they are made
• Im the oldest person in this room.
• Its raining.

Im the oldest
Im the oldest
19
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.

Capital punishment is right (in some cases).
No! Capital punishment is always wrong.
20
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?

21
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?
22
Moral Objectivity and the Meaning of Moral Claims

• To determine whether morality is objective we
  need to have a clear account of what moral claims
  mean.
• Thus one of the central issues in meta-ethics
  and the one we will focus on is What do moral
  claims mean?
• Abortion is morally wrong means??

23
God Morality

• The Supernaturalist Theory of the Meaning of
  Moral Claims (also known as The Divine Command
  Theory)
• The Theory x is morally wrong means God
  disapproves of x (or God forbids x). x is
  morally right means God approves of x (or God
  commands x)

24
Example of the Supernaturalist theory
Dont perform abortions
Abortion is wrong

25
Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory

• Offers answers to the metaphysical and
  epistemological puzzles

Dont perform abortions
26
Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory (contd)

• Makes moral claims objective.
• Offers a clear motivation to be moral.

27
Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory

• It does not capture the meaning of moral claims
  made by atheists.
• Question What does the theory entail if God
  does not exist?
• Even many theists are more certain about some
  moral claims than they are about Gods existence.

28
Platos argument against the Supernaturalist
Theory

• Platos crucial distinction Does God disapprove
  of actions because they are wrong? Or are they
  wrong because God disapproves of them?
• Two analogies
• The brilliant mathematician Does she think the
  theorem is true because it is? Or is it true
  because she thinks it is?
• The referendum Did the voters vote against
  raising property taxes because raising property
  taxes is illegal, or is raising property taxes
  illegal because the voters voted against it?

29
Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory
(contd)

• If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then
  there is nothing intrinsically right in what God
  commands or intrinsically wrong in what He
  prohibits. These actions would not be right or
  wrong if He had not prohibited them.
• So Gods commands are morally arbitrary.

30
Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory
(contd)
Thou shalt commit murder thou shalt not tell the
truth

• Thus it is conceivable that God might have
  decided to command other things and prohibit
  other things.
• So, according to the Supernaturalist theory
• Murder could have been morally right, and
• Honesty could have been morally wrong.

31
Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory
(contd)

• But it seems absurd to say that God might have
  commanded us to steal, murder rape. He could
  not have commanded us to do these things because
• they are wrong,
• being omniscient, He knows they are wrong, and
• being morally good, He would not command us to do
  what is morally wrong.
• If this is right, then it is not Gods commands
  that makes things right or wrong though these
  commands may be an important source of our
  knowledge of what is right wrong. (Compare
  with the mathematician.)

32
Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory
(contd)

• Another problem If the Divine Command Theory is
  correct, then we are not praising God when we say
  that He is morally good. We are simply saying
  that God approves of what God approves of.

x is morally right
God approves of x

If
God approves of things that are morally right
God approves of things that God approves of

Then
33
Simple Subjectivism

• The Theory x is morally wrong means I
  disapprove of x. x is morally right means I
  approve of x.

Capital punishment is right (in some cases).
In some situations, I approve of capital
punishment.

34
Simple Subjectivism and the objectivity of moral
claims

• If simple subjectivism is true, then moral claims
  are not objective
• They are true or false
• But the same ethical statement can be true if
  made by one person and false if made by another
  person.

35
Objections to simple subjectivism

• If it were true, then just about all moral
  disagreement would be an illusion.

Abortion is morally permissible
Abortion is morally wrong
I dont disapprove of abortion
I disapprove of abortion

36
Objections to simple subjectivism

• If it were true, then we could not be wrong when
  we make (sincere) moral judgments.

I dont disapprove of killing Jews.
Killing Jews is morally OK.
FALSE?
TRUE
37
Cultural Relativism

• Eskimos
• Are polygamous
• Indulge in wife-lending
• Commit infanticide
• Leave their elderly parents in the snow to die

38
Cultural Relativism

• Akamarans
• Are modern-day cannibals

39
Cultural Relativism more

• There are two kinds of cultural relativism
• Both unpack the meaning of moral claims by appeal
  to the moral codes that prevail in a culture.
• They differ on which culture is important the
  culture of the person whose acts are being
  morally evaluated (the agent) or the culture of
  the person doing the evaluating.

40
First type of cultural relativism Agent
Relativism
It is morally right for eskimos to kill their
aged parents

• It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x
• means
• Doing x is prohibited (permitted) by the moral
  code prevailing in as culture.

Parent-killing is permitted in eskimo culture

41
Agent relativism

• Question
• If agent relativism is true, should the Akamarans
  continue to indulge in cannibalism?

It is morally right for Akamarans to continue
eating people
Cannibalism is permitted in Akamaran culture

42
Agent relativism and moral objectivity

• If Agent Relativism is correct, then moral claims
  are objective
• They are true or false
• Whether a given claim is true or false does not
  depend on who says it.

It is morally right for Akamarans to continue
eating people
It is morally right for Akamarans to continue
eating people
43
Objection to agent relativism

• If agent relativism is true, then
• It makes no sense to criticize the moral codes of
  other cultures, nor does it makes sense to say
  that an action which accords with the moral rules
  of the agents culture is wrong.
• Thus it makes no sense to criticize the actions
  of the slave traders, Nazis or Al Qaeda
  terrorists.

The Nazis should not have operated concentration
camps.
44
Another illustration agent relativism and the
case of the missionaries
You Akamarans ought not to eat people
Is this right?
45
Second type of cultural relativism Speaker
Relativism
It was morally wrong for the Nazis to exterminate
Jews

• It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x
• means
• Doing x is prohibited (permitted) by the moral
  code prevailing in my (i.e. the speakers)
  culture.

Exterminating Jews is forbidden in 21st century
American culture

46
Speaker relativism and moral objectivity

• If speaker relativism is correct, then moral
  claims are not objective.
• They are true or false, but
• Whether a given moral claim is true or false
  depends on who is making the claim.

It is morally wrong for Akamarans to eat people
It is morally wrong for Akamarans to eat people
47
Objections to speaker relativism (1)

• Moral disagreements across cultures are an
  illusion.

You Akamarans ought not to eat people
Theres nothing wrong with Akamarans eating people
48
Objections to speaker relativism (2)

• If speaker relativism is right, then moral
  criticism of the moral code of ones own culture
  is incoherent.
• Example the slave trade reformer

This is NOT RIGHT!
49
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.

50
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!
Abortiongrrr!
51
Emotivism
Gay people ought to be allowed to get married.
Gay marriage yeah!!

52
Emotivism and moral reasoning

• Question according to Emotivism, whats going on
  when you try to persuade someone to have the same
  moral attitude as you?

Abortion is morally wrong! Its killing an
innocent human being, its murder
53
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.
54
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,
55
Advantages of Emotivism

• Captures the link between ethics and emotions.

Abortion is morally wrong!
56
Advantages of emotivism

• Emotivism can explain moral disagreement if you
  think abortion is morally OK and I think it is
  morally wrong, then
• Its 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

57
Emotivism and objectivity
Abortion Grrr! Please share this attitude.
Abortion is morally wrong!

Abortion ?. Please share this attitude.
or,
58
Disadvantages of Emotivism

• If Emotivism is correct, then morality is not
  objective, thus
• it makes no sense to say that other peoples
  moral views are mistaken
• nor does it make any sense to say that our own
  previous moral views were mistaken.

No it isnt.
Abortion Grrr!
???
59
Disadvantages of Emotivism

THATS NOT TRUE!
Killing Jews is morally OK.
60
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.

61
Using false factual claims to influence emotions
Capital punishment is right.
But 10 of people jailed for murder are later
found innocent.
But its cheaper to jail someone for life than
try them for the death sentence.
Capital punishment is right.
62
Appealing to personal interest to influence
emotions
Abortion is wrong.
If you say that, your sister is immoral.
An unwanted baby wrecks the mothers life.
Abortion is wrong.
63
Relying on abnormal psychological states to
influence emotions
Capital punishment is wrong.
But that bd murdered your father!
But an eye for an eye seems to be a good
principle of justice, doesnt it?
Capital punishment is wrong.
64
The Qualified Attitude Theory (QAT)

• A very sophisticated account of the relation
  between morality and emotions or attitudes.
• Basic idea Moral claims are not claims about our
  actual attitudes they are claims about the
  feelings, attitudes preferences we would have
  if circumstances were ideal for making a moral
  judgment.

65
Ideal circumstances

• Those circumstances include
• Being impartial (not being personally involved in
  the situation)
• Being fully informed about all the relevant facts
• Being psychologically normal not insane, drunk,
  depressed, grief stricken, fatigued etc.

66
QAT The theory
If I was ideally situated, I would have a
positive attitude towards legalizing marijuana.
Marijuana ought to be legalized

67
Advantages of the QAT

• Does a good job at accounting for moral argument
  and deliberation
• In trying to decide what we think (or trying to
  persuade others to agree with us) we look for
  considerations which indicate what attitude we
  (or they) would have if we (or they) were
  impartial, fully informed, etc.

But an eye for an eye seems to be a good
principle of justice, doesnt it?
Capital punishment is wrong.
68
Advantages of the QAT (II)

• Since moral claims are true or false, the QAT
• Makes it clear how other peoples moral views can
  be mistaken.
• Makes it clear how our own moral views can be
  mistaken.

Capital punishment is wrong.
69
The QAT and objectivity

• If the QAT is correct, are moral claims
  objective?
• They are true or false
• But could two people continue to disagree even if
  they both were
• Impartial
• Fully informed about the relevant facts
• Psychologically normal?
• The answer is far from clear.
• If it is yes, then if the QAT is correct, moral
  claims are not objective.

70
Examples
No! Killing Jews is wrong.
Killing Jews is morally OK.
Capital punishment is right (in some cases).
No! Capital punishment is always wrong.