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?
The dominant conception of moral theories suggests they are abstract structures that sort actions, agents and outcomes into categories. These categories could be virtue, right, obligation, duty etc. The dominant conception of moral theories is the centre of a theory and is the basis of moral-decision making. For example with Kantian ethics the dominant conception is duty and with utilitarianism it is utility. For the moral theorist, their job is to make their theory persuasive and apply
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.
(only 5 groups will present, but all must be prepared and the 6cs charts will be graded) 7. Have students respond to the prompt. 10.5 Nationalism and Causes of World War 1 Historical Context: During the era of Imperialism
Is Mackie’s argument from relativity compelling? Mackie’s ‘Ethics: Inventing right and wrong’ critically assesses the idea that there are, or even can be, objective moral truths, and exposits Mackie’s ‘moral relativist’ stance. I intend also in this essay to criticise the idea of moral objectivity, and to deal with the objections that could be potentially raised to a relativist stance. The most obvious task, it would seem, to begin with when assessing the idea of moral objectivity, is to come to an understanding about what is literally meant by ‘an objective moral truth’. The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence.
The definition of ethics is diverse and has been debated between professionals, and still requires further research; two definitions have been considered in defining ethics. The first definition is the requirement of comparing to actions to determine which action are the most ethical alternatives. The second definition is analyzing a situation by determining if a course of action is morally right or morally wrong. The two definitions of ethic have one basic commonality which is ethics requires a comparison which includes two potions(Spark Pan 2010)
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 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.
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
In other words, what is determined what’s right or wrong of a person’s actions depends on the laws within that society. (Banks 2009) In different cultures, to judge a person on their actions of what is right or wrong varies in a fundamental nature because the norms of each culture varies. In relativism, we cannot criticize individuals of their different cultures, but it means that if an individual‘s actions were wrong or immoral, then we must judge that individual by the guidelines of their culture and not by our own. (Banks 2009) In understanding ethical relativism, relativist’s state that there is moral wrong and right, but state that what is wrong for one individual may be right for another individual. In the study of “death row inmate set free”, in our society norms, the action to murder another individual or to rob a business, that person is arrested for that crime committed, brought before a judge, and then sentenced a punishment from the Judge for breaking that law.