Meta-Ethics is a branch of ethics which is concerned with the language that is used in ethical arguments. Many would say that if we do not know what we are talking about, then there is not point to ethical debate. This differs from normative which deicides whether or not something is bad or good and gives us a guide for moral behaviour. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics and tried to make sense of the terms and concepts used. The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean?
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
In searching for what nonconsequentialist believe, I found that it is the opposition of consequentalism. One view that is in opposition to consequentialism is deontology. Alexander describes dentology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
When it comes to the criminal justice field, ethics signify ‘a value system’ or ‘a set of moral principles’ (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2008). In a professional environment, professional behavior needs to be in close relationship with ethics. Professional behavior is requires to adopt organizational ethics in the criminal justice administration. Criminal justice officers must behave ethically in order to behave professionally. This concept is not applicable to
Examine how both deontological and teleological ethical systems can be used to help people make moral decisions. Deontological and teleological ethical systems attempt to provide those who follow them with contrasting moral guides, recommending wrong and right concepts of behaviour. Deontological ethics derives from the Greek word, "Deon" which translates to "duty", for all deontologists, morality is a matter of duty. This ethical theory judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule, so essentially, deontology is concerned with the intent behind an action as well as the nature of the action itself. Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral.
Meta ethics is the study of ethical language; however it differs from normative ethics. Normative ethics determines what is “good” and “bad”, whereas Meta ethics determines the meanings of the terms “good” and “bad”. There are two ethical approaches to Meta ethics, one being Cognitivism. Cognitivism is the view that ethical language can be known and understood objectively, through empirical experience or intuition. The second approach is Non-Cognitivism, this is the view that ethical language cannot be known and understood, due to subjectivity.
This demonstrates Kathy’s obligation to do what is ‘right’ and adheres to a deontological approach to ethics. Deontology is a form of ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than the consequences of the act (Kant, 1964). The intentions of the person doing the act is prioritized over the act’s results (Kant, 1964). For example, the act may be considered the ‘right’ thing to do even if it produces a bad consequence if it adheres to the rule that ‘one should do unto others as they would have done unto them’ (Olson, 1967). Deontology parallels the EAI’s obligation-driven analysis, exemplified by
Immanuel Kant was a deontologist who believed that reason was the final authority for morality, not the consequences of one’s actions as believed by the utilitarians. In other words, all actions would be undertaken with a sense of duty that has been dictated by reason. Kant recognized two types of imperatives by which we act: the Hypothetical Imperative, which stipulates an instrumental action to a goal/result/end; and the Categorical Imperative, which stipulates that the actions we take are irrespective of one’s desires/goals/ends but are bound by duty. The ‘Inquiring Murderer’ is one example of how Kant shows that we should use the Categorical Imperative (CI) to obtain an answer according to his version of morality. We must lie to be a moral person, sending our friend to their impending death.
Social work values and ethical dilemmas What are values, ethics, ethical dilemmas and a code of ethics? Values relate to principles and attitudes that provide direction to everyday living. Values also refer to beliefs or standards considered desirable by a culture, group or individual (AASW). Similar to values, but slightly different, ethics means a system of beliefs held about what constitutes moral judgement and right conduct, they are moral principles (rules, guides) (AASW). So an ethical dilemma is then when a person is faced with a choice between two equally conflicting moral principles and it is not clear cut which choice will be the right one (AASW).