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?
Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone. In ethics then, do we know something is good, or do we believe it is good and recognise that our belief is subjective? This is the question philosopher of meta-ethics are trying to answer – can ethical statements have any meaning? There are two schools of thought to do with ethical language, which are cognitive and non-cognitive theories. Cognitivism is the view that we can have moral knowledge.
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
I will be approaching this from a Dualist point of view and I will be referring to Dualism and it’s supporting arguments, namely; the indivisibility argument and the conceivability argument which explain how, logically, alternatives to dualism are not feasible. These logical arguments offer a firm base to support Descartes’ theories but there is a problem with explaining the interaction between the mind and brain if they are not identical. However, the difficulty in understanding how an interaction can occur does not automatically lend itself to providing evidence that the mind and the body are identical. Descartes believes that the body is intrinsically the same as other material objects in the world. It is an extended thing: reg extensa and has physical properties: its size, its shape and the fact it takes up space out there in the world.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING AND ETHICS The relationship between critical thinking and ethics can be construed differently depending on the individual. However, they seem to work together. While building on one, you are also building on the other. Ethics deals with rules or behaviors based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. Critical thinking can be described as a process by which we determine whether or not something is right or wrong.
Some of these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may contradict the others. A good example of it would be “All the oriental people are good at math”. Self-deception to me is a matter of controversy including its definition. One may say that self-deception is the acquisition and maintenance of a belief in the face of strong evidence to the contrary motivated by desires or emotions favoring the acquisition and retention of that belief. Beyond this whether this action is intentional or not, whether self-deceivers recognize the belief being acquired is unwarranted on the available evidence, whether self-deceivers are morally
[pic] |[pic] | | | |How Science Works | | | |Hi Decisions and opinions on ethical issues are | |based on values. An individual’s view on an issue| |may be based upon a religious or moral position. | | | |Hj Some decisions involve balancing the rights of| |certain individuals and groups against those of | |others. | | | |Hk A utilitarian approach is to argue that the | |right decision or choice is the one that leads to|
Logan Mills Ann Repp 63605 10/27/11 The Implementation of Kohlberg’s Stages Moral development is a major topic of interest in psychology and education. Moral development consists of several dimensions, these being judgment, behavior, and emotion. Moral judgment and behavior tend to be confused with each other. Know that moral judgment differs significantly from moral behavior. Moral judgment is the ability to evaluate the righteousness of a hypothetical action while moral behavior refers to one’s ability to act moral in actual situations.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.