Ethics 1

Ethics Questions / ​ Parallels ​ / ​ Main Ideas Notes Overview of Ethical Knowledge Note: Be wary of writing an essay on ethics rather than the knowledge of ethics ● E.g. How do I know that this is right > Why is this right? ● Focus on Nature (JTB), Construction, Validity and Society Scope of Epistemology in Ethics 1. Nature a. What does Right/Wrong Mean? b. Is Right/Wrong Objective/Subjective? c. Is Right/Wrong Internalist/Externalist d. What actions/motives/people are Right and Wrong? 2. Construction & Validity a. Why is something Right/Wrong? 3. Society a. What are the implications of something being right/wrong? Nature of Ethical Knowledge Ethics exists on a spectrum ● Right vs Wrong ● Obligatory vs Forbidden ● Permissible vs Right/Wrong Subjects of Other Fields of Knowledge ● Science: Real-World Objects ● Maths: Relations between abstract idealised objects ● Art: Experiences Scale of Ethics ● Sometimes right/wrong are not direct opposites ○ E.g. It is right to help the less fortunate →/ It is wrong not to help the less fortunate ○ E.g. It is good not to eat meat →/ It is wrong not to eat meat ■ Right →/ Obligatory Common Binaries ● Forbidden vs Permissible: Eating Meat ● Forbidden vs Obligatory: Telling the Truth ● Permissible vs Obligatory: Recycling

Subject of Ethical Knowledge Claims The “thing” of Ethical JTBs ● Actions ● People ● Intentions/Motives A fundamental belief in Ethics is... Ought → Can ● Threat of Determinism to Moral Realism Ought implies Can If X ought to do something, it is understood that X can do it 1. It is possible for X to choose 2. X is free to choose either way 3. X is responsible for making the choice ● Can’t rejects Ought: If x can’t do action y, we cannot say that x ought to do action y ● Ought: Good/Obligatory ● Used for evaluating if ethical knowledge is Real and Objective Determinism The theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes ● Genetic ● Psychological ● Theological ● Causal The OUGHT → CAN can be contextualised to... State the 3 Views on Human Nature Human Nature The kinds of powers, capacities and dispositions humans have as a result of their ​ normal untouched starting condition ● Determines what “can”s we have and the likeliness of certain actions Views on Human Nature → Ethics 1. Ethics is anti-real: A game with arbitrary rules a. There is no such thing as good/evil b. Humans do not have a nature that tends towards good/evil c. BUT: Leads to the unpleasant conclusion that ethics is a meaningless tendency i. If we assign any purpose to the game e.g. something pragmatic to maintain order in society we would be making an ethical judgement that that purpose e.g. order is good

1. Perhaps we could assign purposes that are not ethically good but rationally good? E.g. Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason bases his ethical system off rational postulates (inescapable assumptions) one has to make in the pursuit of good 2. Human Nature tends towards the good a. Do different people have this disposition to different extents? b. BUT: Why should we reward people for doing right? 3. Human Nature tends towards evil a. BUT: How then can we judge a person for doing wrong? Isn’t there the option that ethics is something real and objective, yet humans do not have a tendency towards either? When it comes to whether Ethics has a truth-value we must consider whether it is DESCRIPTIVE or PRESCRIPTIVE State the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism ● Real vs Non-Real Descriptive Ethical Knowledge is for ​ explaining moral conduct ● Describing Contexts of Moral Issues: Behaviors and Practices ● Identifying Motives ● Development of ​ Theories about why people act ​ as such ● “It is wrong to kill” → “People of this culture have thought that it is wrong to kill” ● Moral Explanation: Ethics explains behavior rather than evaluating how we should behave ● Objectivist Prescriptive Ethically Knowledge is for morally evaluating human conduct ● Provide Moral Guidance ● “It is wrong to kill” → You should not kill ● Moral Justification and Obligation: Ethics justifies/opposes behavior Define Objectivism and Subjectivism ● Truth-Value State two arguments for objectivism and subjectivism Define Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism Define Cognitivism and Objectivism Ethical Claims have Truth-Value (Objectivism) ● Ethical statements describing behavior are ​ either true or false ● Objective: Not based on particular people’s/group’s judgements, beliefs and desires ○ BUT: Does not imply moral universalism where certain actions are universally wrong regardless of circumstance ● Independent of the mind Argument from Epistemic Duties 1. Epistemic Duties ​ are prescribed in philosophical discussion

Non-cognitivism ● Role of reasoning Explain the Frege-Gege Problem with Non-Cognitivism Define Naturalism and Non-naturalism ● Explain the problem with Naturalism a. Though one may argue that this implies that EDs are pragmatic rather than objectively binding → Objectivity of Pragmatism is still assumed 2. Epistemic Duties ​ imply objective moral duties a. Intellectual Honesty → Moral Honesty 3. Objective moral duties exist Argument from ​ Pragmatism ​ about Moral Disagreement 1. People inevitably face ​ competing needs ​ about which we have to strike a compromise a. Institution of Property: Distinction between ‘mine’ and b. Truth-telling c. Promise-giving d. Restraint of Violence and Killing e. Restraint of sexual expression f. Attitude to strangers, minorities and the weak g. Distribution of Resources 2. Without objective moral truth → ​ No room for ethical discussion ​ as all standards are equally correct as taste and preferences a. No means of ​ weighing ​ competing justifications 3. Objective Moral Truths are ​ pragmatically necessary ​ for such moral discourse a. Cultural Relativism is still threatened by individual interpretations of culture Subjectivism Ethical Claims have no Truth-Value or truth-values vary ● Do > Believe ● No universal moral truths Logical Positivism ● Ethical knowledge cannot be empirically observed, tested or proven Wittgenstein: Language is a tool for communication defined by use ● Words do not correspond to some reality or Platonic Ideal but exist in a Family resemblance ○ Most parsimonious definition of language ● Therefore language can only express objective concepts in the real-world ● Cannot express concepts that are not observable ● Therefore: Language cannot convey ethical truths ○ Only in each person’s subjective internal experience Argument from contingency

● Morality manifests in human actions ● Humans are contingent beings (not necessary for humans to exist ● ∴ Morality is subjectivist given that it depends on humans which are contingent ● BUT: Morality manifests in human actions →/ Morality is dependent on humans ○ May still be grounded in objective moral facts Cognitivism Ethics involves ​ reasoning ​ to form JTBs Non-Cognitivism Ethics (particularly ethical language) is concerned with ​ responses, actions and emotions ​ rather than thinking and consideration ● No JTBs and Truth-value (They lack truth-apt status) ● E.g. Emotivism ● Focus on what act the speaker is performing > What the speaker means in using moral language Frege-Geach Problem ● Challenge to Non-cognitivism 1. Moral Language has logical properties: a. Stealing is bad is contradictory with stealing is not bad b. (Stealing is Bad → Murder is Bad) + (Stealing is Bad) → (Murder is Bad) 2. Without True