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?
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
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. 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 cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful 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 ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
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.
A person inherently has some sort of primitive worldview and code of personal ethics. Understanding, and in some cases coming to grips with, your worldview is important to understanding who you are and what you stand for in life. By knowing what makes you tick and why you act in certain ways is the first step on the journey to personal enlightenment and to creating a more secure sense of self and personal wellbeing. The following pages will establish the basis for my ethical worldview and discuss the development of my own ethical theory. Overview of Relevant Ethical Theories Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics was founded as it is known today by Plato and Aristotle, though
The word ‘ethics’ basically means moral values, it effects the way a person lives their life, and it also has an effect on decisions people make. ‘How to live a good life’, ‘our rights and responsibilities’, ‘the language of right and wrong’, ‘what is good and bad’, all of these come under ethics. People’s perception of ethics can differentiate from religions, philosophies, and cultures. Topics like abortion, professional conduct, and human rights are all debateable because of ethics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml I think that ethics is acknowledging the difference between something right and wrong; it is a thinking procedure of deciding whether something shouldn’t or should be done.
I disagree that Hume's arguments to causation are successful to a full extent due to the fact that Hume's challenges criticise causation from the point of view that empirical evidence is our only source of knowledge, suggesting we cannot know whether the effect due to cause can be discovered because "the effect is different from the cause, and so can never be discovered." Yet why should we apply the limitations of our ability to state that God does not exist? To further evaluate, Hume states we are bound by empirical data and so we will only be able to 'induce' that the regress of cause and effect exists and so this regress falls foul to Hume's Fork. The criticism of Hume's challenge is formulated in the sense that because philosophically and empirically "we will never know the true origins of the universe" it does not mean that "the universe is the "brute fact" as stated by B. Russell. A second challenge of Hume is that we are able to possibly imagine that something can cause itself into existence.
Traditionally most moral theories have been written through some form of coherentism. Recently, people have started to worry about the practicality of moral theories, as it would seem that they cannot be applied in real life situations. Philosophers such as Susan Wolf have attacked the ideals of traditional moral theories. The problems of moral theory have been the main focus of most philosophers, but there is another problem in modern moral philosophy. There are so many conflicting theories that it makes it almost impossible to choose what the moral thing to do would be.
Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals. David Hume initially pointed out that it would be illogical to derive facts from values – facts cannot be used in the assignment of values. This was later referred to as the is-ought gap, fact-value distinction, or “naturalistic fallacy” to use the term coined by G.E. Moore. Naturalists would argue that moral values can indeed be derived from facts by employing what is morally “good” as an empirical rather than deontological property to it.
While these theories hold much in common regarding how they see morality, they differ greatly in their reasoning for why they think that way. Aristotelian virtue ethics focus more on the person as a moral creature at heart and their desire for morality to be the driving force behind moral behavior. An excellent example of the difference in the three theories in this instance would be a situation involving lying. Dishonesty is considered morally wrong by most theories of ethics, but all of the moral theories approach it differently. Deontology, as espoused by Immanuel Kant, would argue against the morality of lying from a moral absolutism standpoint.