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 Language is Subjective”. Discuss. (35) Subjectivity or Objectivity in the way that ethical language is used is considered within the broader study of meta-ethics, often described as a second order moral discourse, which considers the meaning of ethical terms such as good, bad, right or wrong. To say that ethical language is subjective is to suggest that there does not exist an objective or universally accepted understanding of, for example, goodness and that is merely reflects an individual’s opinion or viewpoint. AJ Ayer in his book “language, truth and Logic” outlines what is commonly called the “emotivist” approach to ethical language.
They include, taking responsibility for your actions, treat yourself and others with respect, be fair and honest. But they still leave much to be determined by the individual. What is Ethics? Merriam Webster defines ethics as “1) the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation, 2) A set of moral principles, 3) A set of moral issues.” Thus ethical standards are
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
There are so many conflicting theories that it makes it almost impossible to choose what the moral thing to do would be. In his essay, Jamieson doesn’t say that he’ll solve the problems of moral theory but he’ll discuss them, the nature of moral theory and some questions of method. In the first part of his essay Jamieson talks about the nature of moral theories. There are two approaches to making a moral theory; Top-Down system (Dominant conception) or Bottom-up system (Anti-theorist). The dominant conception of moral theories suggests they are abstract structures that sort actions, agents and outcomes into categories.
A person must ultimately make the decision to be “good” in the presences of negative influences, it is what we as a society have determined to be “good” that sets apart the civilized from uncivilized societies. There are several ethical philosophies that hold merit and each has its weaknesses alongside its strengths. Virtue ethics, developed in ancient Greece with proponents such as Plato and Aristotle, is probably one of the most well known of the philosophies for its long history and relatively basic structure. Several other ethical views are built upon the basics set out in virtue ethics. A person inherently has some sort of primitive worldview and code of personal ethics.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue Ethics does not merely adopt a set of rules; it changes depending on the decision makers themselves who form the framework for this theory. Virtue ethics is the most realistic and holistic and flexible among the three theories, primarily because it employs the concept of virtues and not rules. Sometimes, moral dilemmas have no answer. However, followers of Deontology and Consequentialism may argue that there is a right or wrong thing to do even in such situations.
Given the actual conditions of having different moral codes co-existing in our communities and ethical problems that had not been presented with such intensity before, achieving this goal is even harder than it used to be. Studying ethics, as we will notice during the development of the course, is not an easy task. In order to do it, please be ready to open your mind to objectively analyze ideas that may differ from your moral code. Be aware that having a deep personal conviction is not a guarantee of the rightness of an ethical position. Rather, we will use different tools to analyze the arguments, validity, usefulness, and practicality of some of the ideas philosophers have explored in order to answer ethical questions.
“If we hope to sift style from substance, and discredit the willful muddling of the two that makes the unfamiliar look exotic, then we are looking not just for family resemblances or a behavioral lowest common dominator, but for moral threads and themes that can anchor norms to recognizably objective values (Goodman, 2010)”. Relativism is the reference to a variety of diverse thoughts that people have. The moral relativism affirms that morality is not being centered on one complete custom. Morality is centered on several customs of cultures and other things. The moral relativism can be centered on a person’s faith, the beliefs that their family instilled in him or
Wellman devotes the bulk of his essay using and justifying Samaritanism as the means to require the moral duty. Simmons’ spends the vast majority of his effort attempting to refute why certain schools of thought such as Associative, Transactional, and Natural State Theories are inadequate in justifying the core justification for a moral duty of obedience. I will briefly summarize and critique each author’s key concepts and conclude with my own beliefs on this matter. Needless to say, even upon completion of this work their remains much ambiguity and questions regarding an individual’s moral duty to obey the law. Wellman begins his essay is a way that made it hard for me to take the rest of his work seriously.