Difference between meta ethics and normative ethics

Meta ethics – deals with the nature of ethics and moral reasoning. Essentially, it examines ethical language such as ‘good’, ‘ought’ and ‘wrong’. In other words, what do we mean when we call something ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

Normative ethics – is interested in determining the content of moral behaviour. It seeks to provide a guide for moral behaviour. In effect, it answers the question “what ought I do in situation x?” The moral theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative ethics.

Background to meta ethics

A key factor in ethical dilemmas is whether they are subjective or objective, that is whether they are based on personal opinion or on external facts. A subjective statement would be “The 1970s Brazil squad was the best of all time.” The statement is purely subjective – my own opinion. However, the statement “The sun is hot” is objective since it is true regardless of what I feel – it is true for everyone.

If morality is objective, then it is cognitive. Cognitive language deals with making propositions which can be known to be either true or false. However, if it is subjective then it becomes non-cognitive, meaning that in ethics we do not deal with things that are resolved by ascertaining the validity or falsification of a statement.

Ethical Naturalism [Cognitivist]

The naturalist approach is to treat ethical statements the same as non ethical statement – i.e. as propositions that can be verified or falsified.

E.g. propositions such as “acid turns litmus paper red” can be established using evidence just as the statement “murder is wrong” can. If we look at the evidence, we see that generally murder makes people unhappy therefore it is wrong.

Criticisms of ethical naturalism

• G. E. Moore in his book ‘Principa Ethica’ says that ethical naturalism makes a fundamental error – moral statements cannot be verified using empirical evidence – that is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. His argument was based on a test he had devised to establish whether definitions of words were correct or incorrect. The statement “George is a brother, but is he is a male sibling?” is ‘closed’ because the definition of a brother is a male sibling – the answer is found within the statement. An ‘open’ question on the other hand means that the definition is not implied and therefore to take the second part of the question as defining the first part would be incorrect. An example of an open question is “I know George is a brother but is he a teacher at Oxford?” The question does not carry within itself an automatic answer. George may well be a brother but this does not imply that he teaches at Oxford. Moore says that definitions of natural terms proposed by ethical naturalism produce open questions.

Intuitionism [Cognitivist]

Moore proposed intuitionism. He said that ‘good’ is indefinable:

“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.”

Ø      ‘Good’ is indefinable;

Ø      there are objective moral truths;

Ø      the basic moral truths are self evident to the mature mind.

Henry Sidgewick

Sidgewick believed that there were three self evident moral truths:

1. Principle of prudence – defer an immediate pleasure for a greater pleasure in the future (e.g. saving up money)
2. Principle of Justice – you should not put your own interests in front of those of the community
3. Principle of Benevolence – care for those in need

F. H. Bradley

Bradley said that we discover moral obligation from society. This moral obligation is called the concrete universal. He said that moral activity is finding out your position in society and carrying out your duties. Said “don’t question society” – challenged by Socrates 2000 years before.

H. A. Prichard

Prichard said that there were two types of thinking:

General thinking – in which 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.

Prichard said that some people have clearer moral intuition that others because their moral thinking has been further developed. This accounts for differences in moral actions. However, he did not tell us how to ascertain who has the clearer intuition.

W. D. Ross

Ross was greatly influenced by Moore and Prichard and said that:

• ‘Right’ and ‘obligatory’ are as indefinable as ‘good’
• There are two elements in determining what is right:
  • The factual situation and;
  • How that situation is viewed,

Ross came to the conclusion that there can only be 4 possible conditions under which something is right:

1. an act which is in fact right in the situation as it in fact is
2. an act which the agent thinks is right in the situation as it in fact is
3. an act which is in fact right in the situation as the agent thinks it is
4. an act which the agent thinks is right in the situation as the agent thinks it is

Ross opts for 4 as all others demand certain knowledge and in practical terms no one has the quality of knowledge. Therefore, 4 is the subjective evaluation of the situation which leads to a direct form of individual intuition to access right conduct.

Criticism of intuitionism

• How can we be sure that intuitions are correct? Are they a gut feeling? The voice of God?

• People who intuit and those who use reason may reach different conclusions and there is no obvious way to resolve their differences.

• Intuited knowledge owes more to social background than any firm basis for morality according to Bradley.

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

Logical Positivists [Non cognitivist]

Logical positivists rejected the idea of certain knowledge about good and bad since they are non cognitivists. They say that since statements only have meaning if they can be tested and moral statements cannot be tested then logically they have no meaning.

Emotivism [Non cognitivist]

A. J. Ayer

Emotivism or the ‘Boo Hurrah Theory’ was proposed by Ayer in ‘Language, Truth and Logic’. He said that words such as good or wrong have no intrinsic meaning.

Emotivism says that moral statements such as “murder is wrong” is merely saying that I (the speaker) disapprove of the act of murder – it is only valid insofar as it is a reflection of the feelings and opinions of the speaker.

In other words, moral statements only express personal feelings and make no reference to actual fact. Thus the statement “murder is wrong” becomes equivalent to the statement “I prefer orange smarties the best”. So, moral statements become arbitrary and meaningless.

C. L. Stevenson

In his book ‘Ethics and Language’, Stevenson modified Ayer’s ideas. He accepted that ethical statements are expressions of attitude and opinion but he claimed that they were not arbitrary. In fact, he proposed that they were based on beliefs about the world and the ways that it should work, experiences of the world and the way we want it to be.

Criticisms of emotivism

• How can one judge between two people’s moral opinions?

• Emotivism prescribes complete freedom of action on the basis that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and hence everyone is free to do what they choose, regardless of the opinion of others.

Prescriptivism [Non cognitivist]

R. H. Hare

In ‘Language of Morals’, Hare agrees with Ayer that moral statements are expressions of opinion rather than fact, but he claimed that they are not just expressing our views but prescribing our opinions to others. So, when I say “murder is wrong”, I am saying “you ought not to murder and neither will I”.

Criticisms of prescriptivism

• Moral judgements are founded on prescriptions and have no claim to objective truth.

• Does not specify why one should follow one person’s prescriptions rather than another’s.