An Explanation of Terminology used in Metaethics

Summary

The script discusses moral philosophy, contrasting moral objectivism, which asserts universal moral facts, with moral skepticism and relativism, which deny such facts. It explores consequentialism, where moral value is based on outcomes, and non-consequentialism, which looks to action intentions or characteristics. The script also introduces moral subjectivism, ethical relativism, and moral nihilism, concluding with a critique of moral skepticism and an argument for the existence of moral facts independent of our terminology.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script is a discussion about moral philosophy, focusing on whether there are objective moral facts that apply universally.
• 🌐 Moral objectivism is the belief that there are universal moral facts that everyone should adhere to, regardless of personal beliefs.
• 🔍 The script explores different moral theories, including consequentialism, which asserts that the morality of actions is determined by their consequences.
• 🤔 Moral skepticism questions the existence of objective moral facts, suggesting that what's right or wrong may vary based on individual or societal context.
• 👤 Moral subjectivism is the view that moral facts differ for each individual, meaning actions are right or wrong based on one's own moral code.
• 🌍 Moral relativism posits that moral facts are relative to a culture or society, with different moral systems being correct within their own context.
• 🚫 Moral nihilism is the extreme stance that there are no moral facts at all, rendering all moral claims meaningless.
• 🗣️ Error theory is the idea that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts to support them.
• 📖 The script mentions Schaeffer Landau's argument against moral skepticism, suggesting that just because we create moral vocabulary doesn't mean we create the moral facts themselves.
• 🌌 The script uses the analogy of the Flat Earth theory to illustrate error theory, comparing it to moral claims that are believed to be entirely false.

Q & A

What is the central question of the second chapter of Schaeffer Landau's book?

The central question is whether there are objective, universal moral facts that apply to everyone, everywhere, about what's right and what's wrong.

What is the term for the view that there are moral facts that apply to everyone everywhere?

The term for this view is 'moral objectivism'.

What is consequentialism, and who is an example of a consequentialist?

Consequentialism is the view that the moral rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by their consequences. An example of a consequentialist is Jeremy Bentham.

What does it mean to be a moral skeptic?

A moral skeptic is someone who believes that there are no objective or universal moral facts.

What is moral subjectivism, and how does it differ from moral objectivism?

Moral subjectivism is the view that there are no objective, universal moral facts, but there are moral facts that are different for each person. It differs from moral objectivism by asserting that moral facts are relative to the individual, rather than universal.

What is moral relativism, and how does it differ from moral subjectivism?

Moral relativism is the view that moral facts are relative to a culture or society, and what is morally right or wrong varies between societies. It differs from moral subjectivism in that moral facts are relative to a society rather than an individual.

What is moral nihilism, and how does it relate to the existence of moral facts?

Moral nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts at all, neither objective nor relative. It denies the existence of any kind of moral facts or laws.

What is an error theory in the context of moral discourse?

An error theory in moral discourse is the claim that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts to which these statements could correspond.

What is the difference between an error theory and a non-cognitive theory of moral statements?

An error theory claims that moral statements are false because there are no moral facts. A non-cognitive theory, on the other hand, suggests that moral statements do not have truth-value and are instead expressions of sentiment or attitudes.

What is the argument Schaeffer Landau presents against moral skepticism?

The argument against moral skepticism is that just because we invented the terms 'right' and 'wrong' does not mean we invented the concepts of rightness or wrongness. It's a distinction between the vocabulary we create and the facts or entities that exist independently of our language.

What is the significance of the vocabulary versus facts distinction in moral philosophy?

The significance lies in understanding that the creation of moral vocabulary does not necessarily imply the creation of the moral facts themselves. This distinction helps to clarify that moral facts could exist independently of our language about them.