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.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Moral Objectivism and Skepticism

The script begins with a critique of moral skepticism, suggesting that the entire theory is a mistake. It then introduces the concept of moral objectivism, which asserts that there are universal moral facts that apply to everyone, regardless of personal beliefs. The author, Schaeffer Landau, defends moral objectivism in his book. The video also touches on consequentialism, the idea that the morality of actions is determined by their consequences, and non-consequentialism, which posits that actions have moral value beyond their outcomes. The script sets the stage for a discussion on moral relativism and subjectivism, which will be explored in subsequent paragraphs.

05:01

🌐 Moral Relativism and Subjectivism

This paragraph delves into moral relativism and subjectivism. Moral relativism suggests that moral facts are not universal but vary based on societal or cultural context. For example, an action considered moral in one society might be immoral in another. Moral subjectivism, on the other hand, posits that moral facts are personal and that each individual has their own moral code. An action is only immoral if it violates an individual's own moral standards. The script also introduces moral nihilism, the belief that there are no moral facts at all, and error theory, which claims that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts to support them.

10:02

🗣️ Error Theory and Non-Cognitivism

The script discusses error theory in the context of moral discourse, suggesting that if one believes there are no moral facts, then all moral statements are false. It provides an analogy with Flat Earth theory, which is also considered an error theory because the Earth is not flat. The paragraph also introduces non-cognitivism, the view that moral statements do not express truth claims but are instead expressions of sentiment or attitude. Non-cognitivists argue that moral language does not have cognitive significance and cannot be true or false.

15:04

🌟 The Distinction Between Vocabulary and Facts

This section argues against the assumption that because we create moral vocabulary, we also create the moral facts themselves. Schaeffer Landau uses the analogy of the word 'planet' to illustrate that while we invented the word, the celestial bodies it describes existed long before human language. He suggests that the same could be true for moral terms like 'right' and 'wrong'; just because we use these terms does not mean we created the moral facts they refer to. The paragraph serves as a defense of moral objectivism, implying that moral facts may exist independently of our language and terminology.

20:07

🔍 The Argument Against Moral Skepticism

The final paragraph summarizes the argument against moral skepticism presented in the script. It emphasizes the distinction between inventing moral vocabulary and inventing moral facts. Schaeffer Landau argues that just because humans created the terms used to describe moral concepts does not mean that humans also created the moral facts these terms refer to. The paragraph reinforces the idea that moral facts might exist independently of our language, challenging the skeptic's view that there are no objective moral truths.

Keywords

💡Moral Objectivism

Moral Objectivism is the philosophical stance that there are objective moral facts that apply universally, regardless of individual or cultural differences. In the script, the author defends this view, suggesting that certain actions are inherently right or wrong. This is central to the video's theme as it sets the stage for discussing moral facts and their universality.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the ethical theory that the moral value of an action is determined by its consequences. The script mentions Andrew Bentham as a consequentialist, emphasizing that if the outcomes of actions dictate their moral worth, then one aligns with this view. This concept is pivotal as it contrasts with other theories that might base morality on intentions or virtues.

💡Non-Consequentialism

Non-Consequentialism is the belief that the morality of an action is not solely based on its consequences. The script contrasts this with consequentialism, citing Aristotle and Kant as proponents. For Aristotle, moral worth comes from the nature of the action itself in relation to human virtue, while Kant believed it derived from the maxims underlying the action. This keyword is crucial for understanding the diversity of moral theories.

💡Moral Skepticism

Moral Skepticism is the view that there are no objective or universal moral facts. The script suggests that if one denies the existence of universal moral truths, they are a moral skeptic. This term is integral to the video's narrative as it presents an alternative to moral objectivism and consequentialism, introducing the idea of moral relativity or subjectivity.

💡Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism is the position that moral principles are not absolute but may vary among different societies or cultures. The script explains this by suggesting that what is morally permissible can differ based on societal norms. This keyword is significant as it challenges the universal applicability of moral principles discussed earlier in the video.

💡Moral Subjectivism

Moral Subjectivism is the idea that moral truths are determined by individual perspectives rather than objective standards. The script illustrates this by proposing that each person has their own moral code, which is right for them. This concept is key to understanding personal morality and how it contrasts with universal moral facts.

💡Moral Nihilism

Moral Nihilism is the belief that there are no moral facts or objective moral values at all. The script describes this as the view that nothing is inherently morally good or bad. This keyword is central to the video's exploration of moral skepticism and the potential extremes of denying moral truths.

💡Error Theory

Error Theory, as discussed in the script, is the idea that all moral claims are false because there are no moral facts to which they could correspond. It is presented as a response to moral nihilism, where if one believes there are no moral facts, then all moral statements are mistaken. This keyword is important for understanding the implications of denying moral objectivity.

💡Non-Cognitivism

Non-Cognitivism is the view that moral statements do not express factual claims and thus cannot be true or false. The script mentions this in the context of explaining moral discourse if one believes moral claims are not truth-apt. This concept is significant for understanding an alternative approach to moral language that does not rely on truth values.

💡Terminology

Terminology, as used in the script, refers to the specific words or phrases used to convey concepts. The discussion around 'terminology' versus 'facts' is crucial as it distinguishes between the human-made language used to describe moral concepts and the independent existence of those moral facts. This keyword is foundational to the video's argument about the potential objectivity of moral facts.

💡Moral Discourse

Moral Discourse refers to conversations or discussions about moral issues, principles, or judgments. The script explores the implications of moral nihilism and error theory on moral discourse, questioning the validity of such discussions if there are no moral facts. This keyword is essential for understanding the practical impact of various moral philosophies on how we talk about ethics.

Highlights

The transcript discusses the central question of moral philosophy: Are there objective, universal moral facts?

Moral objectivism is the view that there are moral facts that apply to everyone, everywhere.

Consequentialism is the view that the morality of actions is determined by their consequences.

Non-consequentialism, as seen in Aristotle's philosophy, holds that actions have moral value beyond their consequences.

Kant's non-consequentialism suggests moral rightness is based on the maxim of actions, not just intentions.

Moral skepticism doubts the existence of objective or universal moral facts.

Relativism proposes that moral facts vary based on societal or contextual differences.

Moral subjectivism is the stance that each person has their own moral code that is right for them.

Ethical or moral relativism asserts that moral facts are relative to a culture or society.

Moral nihilism denies the existence of any moral facts, objective or non-objective.

Error theory claims that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts.

Non-cognitivism suggests that moral statements do not have truth-value and are expressions of sentiment.

The chapter introduces a defense of moral objectivism against moral skepticism.

The argument against moral skepticism draws a distinction between vocabulary and facts or entities.

Shafer Landau argues that inventing moral terms does not imply we invented the moral facts themselves.

The chapter lays out the moral landscape, setting the stage for deeper philosophical discussions.

Transcripts

they're all false it's a whole big

mistake all this whole this whole theory

is just one mistake it's one big error

and every single statement that they

make is a falsehood false false false

that's an error theory

[Music]

all right this is gonna be a boring one

this was a boring chapter and this is

gonna be a boring video it won't be long

but we gotta do it why is this so boring

well it's boring because it is

terminological we're gonna do a lot with

terminology right now okay so today we

read the second chapter of a Schaeffer

landau book and this is the chapter

where we just get some of our terms or

words or expressions straight so that

we're all talking to each other and we

know what we're talking about

the central question is this

are there facts that apply to everyone

everywhere about what's right and what's

wrong that's the central question if you

say yes right then Schaffer Landau says

that you are a this is his term moral

Objectivist that view is moral

objectivism it's the view that there are

moral facts that apply to everyone

everywhere no matter what they think and

this is the view by the way that he's

defending in the book once you land on

that view you could ask other questions

like another question that you might ask

is something like

is it the results or the products or the

outcomes or the consequences of actions

that make them right or wrong or is it

something else about the actions like

their intentions if you think it's the

consequences if you say yes then you are

a consequentialist and we actually

already read a consequentialist in this

course Bentham Andrew Bentham okay so

that's consequentialism if you say no

then you are some kind of

non-consequentialist and we read a

couple of them we read Aristotle

Aristotle thinks that certain actions

are virtuous or vicious but the virtue

the goodness the moral goodness of an

action is not determined by its

consequences but by well some relation

between those kinds of actions and the

type of creature a human being that's

performing them and then we also read we

didn't read Conte directly but we read

O'Neill who was characterizing Khan's

few and Kant is also a

non-consequentialist thinks that the

moral rightness or wrongness of actions

is determined by the maxim on which the

action is founded which is not exactly

the same as an intention but close to an

intention okay but back up to the top

are there objective Universal moral

facts if you say no then you are as

Schaffer Landau puts it a moral skeptic

the skepticism is skepticism

specifically about objective or

universal moral facts you think that

there aren't any but then there's this

other question you say oh well if there

are no objective moral facts you ask are

there non objective moral facts are

there facts about what's right and wrong

it's just not facts that apply

universally to everyone everywhere they

just apply differently based on well

some other fact about the context in

which the action was performed if you

say yes to this question then you're

some kind of relativist of one kind or

another right but actually Shafer landau

doesn't label this position so we're

just gonna leave this position unlabeled

right and we're gonna ask okay so if you

say there are no universal moral facts

but there are non objective non

universal moral facts then you might ask

what fact about inaction determines

which moral laws apply to it is it the

day of the week that it was performed on

is it the person who performed that

action is it the Society of the person

that performed that action so there are

two typical answers to this question one

answer is that moral facts are relative

to the individual

that view Schaefer landau calls well I

don't know if he calls it moral or

ethical he's always switching between

moral and ethical some of these this

might even be ethical skepticism I don't

know we're just gonna use the word moral

every time because it's better to be

consistent and anytime that we say

ethical in this course we mean the same

thing as moral anyway so moral

subjectivism moral subjectivism is the

view that well there are no objective

universal moral facts but there are some

moral facts it's just that the moral

facts change or are different for each

person every person has their own moral

code and every person's moral code is

right for them for their own behavior

their moral code is the one that

determines whether what they do is right

or wrong that's moral subjectivism now

you might immediately think wait

everyone has their own moral code does

that mean that no action that anyone

performs is wrong or immoral the answer

is actually no some of those actions are

going to be wrong or immoral it's just

that the only way in action can be

immoral is if it violates an

individual's own moral code right so you

personally believe that murder is wrong

and then for some reason you murder

someone well then that would be wrong

but it will be wrong because you broke

your own moral commitment or your own

moral principle and that's the only way

that actions can be wrong that's moral

subjectivism the other somewhat common

view along these lines is that the moral

facts are relative to a different

culture or society the idea is that

every society has their own system of

morality and every society system of

morality is correct for members of that

society so if one society practices

human sacrifice then human sacrifice is

morally permissible in that society for

member

of that society but if someone somewhere

else does it and their society condemns

human sacrifice then it's wrong when

they do it right this view he just calls

ethical or moral relativism again I know

that he labels some of these terms with

well he starts him with ethical instead

of moral and some of them he starts with

moral instead of ethical but he's using

these terms synonymously and so I'm just

gonna use the one term moral okay

there's another view here there's

another there's another answer to the

question are there non objective moral

facts and that answer of course is no if

you say that there are no objective

Universal moral facts and you say that

there are no non objective non universal

moral facts then you think that there

are no moral facts at all and the name

for this view is moral nihilism there

are no moral facts at all that's the

nihilistic view okay but if you go that

route if you say that there are no moral

truths there are no moral facts there

are no moral laws not ones that apply to

everyone everywhere and not ones that

apply within a society or to individual

people then you have this problem or a

parent problem or at least you've got

something you have to explain and the

thing you have to explain is all of the

moral talk all of the moral discourse

all of the moral things that people say

people say things like that's not right

or that's evil or the right thing to do

is law and we say this stuff a lot

there's a lot of moral talk I don't know

what percentage of our discourse is

moral discourse but it's a lot I don't

know 2% 1% that's a lot of talk that's a

lot of what we say so what are you gonna

say about all the moral talk if you

answer the question are there non

objective moral facts and are there

objective moral facts by saying no

there's not any

of any kind then you have to answer the

question can moral claims be true or

false

if you say yes let's go all the way down

here if you say yes and you're a moral

nihilist then you are what's called an

error theorist in error theory I should

be very very very clear is not a theory

of morality it's a theory of moral

language or moral talk it's the claim

that all the moral discourse all the

moral assertions all the moral

statements they're all false they're all

mistaken they're all incorrect right

that's one route so you're a moral

nihilist you think that there are no

moral facts and so anytime anyone says

anything they say that recreational drug

use is wrong that's false it's not wrong

recreational drug use is morally

permissible well that's wrong also

that's not true nothing is morally

permissible and nothing is morally

prohibited slavery is evil no that's

false

slavery is good well no that's that's

false also right

according to arrow Theory every time

anyone says anything about what's

morally right or morally wrong or

morally permissible or morally

impermissible every one of those

statements is a falsehood now I should

say something about error theories in

general in general there's nothing wrong

with an error theory there are lots of

error theories that are accurate the

example that I often get when I ask

students in class for an example of a

whole set of discourse a whole group of

statements that are all just mistaken

the whole thing is just a big mistake

and everything they say is false

commonly I will get the answer

Flat Earth theory

so the earth is roughly spherical it's

kind of like bulges out at the sides I

think because it's spinning and anyway

but it's roughly spherical and so Flat

Earth theory is false and the flat

earthers they say all sorts of stuff

there's all this Flat Earth discourse

they say things like you know the photos

of the Earth from space are doctored

they're altered to make the earth look

spiracle they're not real and they say

things like and arctica is uh he's an

ice wall right because on on the Flat

Earth view right

the earth is a boy here we go the earth

is uh is flat and then here all right

there's the Flat Earth right and in the

middle is the North Pole they think

where they say and then all along the

edges is Antarctica Antarctica is just a

huge ice wall around the edges and

that's why we can't go to the edge of

the earth because it's just too cold and

everybody tries to go and and they just

give up or something because it's really

cold um and they think that the Sun and

the moon

okay the Sun and Moon orbit like like

not like hawks but like like birds of

prey circling a wounded animal flying

around it from above I don't know I'm

gonna say hawks but I know Hawks don't

do that it's some other kind of bird of

prey sorry Hawks um anyway the Sun in

the moon they just sort of like go

around in circles on top you know

there's the moon and the Sun and they go

like this anyway they say all these

things what is the correct theory of all

of this Flat Earth discourse all of

these statements the right theory I'll

just put it out there is an error theory

they're all false it's a whole big

mistake all this whole there's all

theories just one mistake it's one big

error and every single statement that

they

make is a falsehood false false false

that's an error theory the error

theorists in this case says that just

about every moral statement and moral

statements of course are way more common

than flat earther statements so that's

what the error theorist says but you

might want to keep those moral

statements around you might think no no

that's not right

when we make moral statements we're not

even saying anything that can be true or

false

in the first place and therefore we can

keep saying all of these moral things if

that's your view if your answer here is

no you say that moral claims aren't even

the kind of thing that could be true or

false in the first place well then you

are some kind of non cognitive assist

you think that moral statements don't

literally have cognitive significance

they don't state propositions right we

read a Jair a Jair fits into this

category

he's a non cognitive estate who we've

laid out the terminological territory

are their objective universal moral

facts if you say yes then you're a moral

Objectivist and then there's this

further question well do those moral

facts depend fundamentally or primarily

or exclusively on the consequences of

actions if the answer is yes then you're

a consequentialist like Bentham if the

answer is no then you're a

non-consequentialist like Aristotle or

can't if instead to this first question

you say no there are no objective

Universal moral facts then you're a

moral skeptic and then the question is

well are there non objective non

universal moral facts if the answer is

yes then you're either a relativist if

you think the moral facts are different

for every society or you're a

subjectivist if you think that the moral

facts are different for every person

but if instead

you say no there are no moral facts at

all there are no objective moral facts

and there are no relative moral facts

there just are no moral facts there are

no moral laws nothing is strictly

speaking morally good and nothing is

morally bad then you're a nihilist and

then you have to explain moral discourse

and either you explain that discourse by

saying it's all false in which case

you're an error theorist or you explain

that discourse all of that moral talk by

saying that that talk was never the kind

of thing that could be true or false in

the first place it is for instance just

a bunch of ways of expressing a

sentiment like saying boo or yay all

right that is the moral territory and it

might seem like this has been a rather

boring chapter that just layed out the

moral territory and that's true it was a

rather boring chapter that laid out the

moral territory or the moral landscape

but there was a little bit of an

argument that was snuck in there a

little bit of an argument against moral

skepticism or a kind of defense of moral

objectivism okay

here's what that argument is the

argument comes in the form of a

distinction between vocabulary on the

one hand and facts or entities entities

on the other hand here's an example of

some vocabulary the word planet we made

that up the word we made up the word

planet that's uncontroversial everyone

thinks that we invented the word planet

we made it up and we made up similar

words in other languages those are human

inventions words vocabulary but then

there's the actual things right the

planets themselves yeah it was like a

on the planet another thing

they're the planets themselves we didn't

make those those were out there long

before we got here and the sentences

that we construct with vocabulary right

we say Venus is aa

planet those sentences well those are

human creations also we say the

sentences we made up the words and then

we use these words that we made up to

make more things like sentences which

are a bunch of air waves that come out

of our mouths or a bunch of bits of ink

that we write on surfaces of various

kinds right this is all stuff that we

make but the fact the entities

themselves the planets and then the

facts about those planets like the fact

that Venus is a planet

well that's just a fact we didn't make

that fact up venus was a planet long

before we got here there it was circling

the Sun every two hundred in something

days I don't know how long Venus takes

to go around the Sun but I know it's 200

something days it's less than 300 days

takes us 365 it takes Venus to something

right Venus goes around the Sun there it

was orbiting the Sun all this while

before we got around here so Venus was a

planet long Venus existed and Venus was

a planet long before we got here and

started making up words so the facts

they're out there independent of us and

the entities the planet it's out there

independent of us right but the words

and the sentences we made those why does

Schafer Landau draw this distinction he

draws this distinction to point

something out which is that it's sort of

obvious to a lot of people that we've

created these things and they mistakenly

go from the fact that we invented the

words or the vocabulary to the fact that

we invented the things we didn't invent

the things at least not some of them

right I mean some things we did invent

so here's another entity a

table here's the table and there's the

legs and like right there right we

invented tables someone I didn't do it

someone invented the table and then

we've been making tables ever since we

make tons of tables and we also made the

word table so sometimes we make the word

and we make the thing but sometimes we

just make the word and we don't make the

thing so the mere fact that we invented

the terminology and we uttered the

sentences the mere fact that all of this

comes from us and wasn't out there

independently of us it doesn't mean that

these things aren't out there

independently of us some of these things

are out there independent of us and so

what Shaffer Landau is gonna claim is

that yeah sure

we invented the terms right and wrong we

invented terms like good and evil but

then it's just still a further question

of whether or not we invented goodness

or evilness also if we did invent that

too

then we are at least some kind of moral

skeptic where you ought to be a moral

skeptic rather if we invented goodness

itself or badness itself but don't

mistakenly assume that just because we

invented the word right and the word

wrong that we also thereby made those

kinds of behavior right or wrong or that

we just made up the fact that certain

kinds of behavior are right or wrong

you