Metaethics: An Introduction

Summary

This script delves into the realm of meta-ethics, a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of moral values and properties. It outlines the three main branches of ethics: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each with distinct roles. The script further explores cognitivism and non-cognitivism, contrasting the objective truth claims of cognitivist theories like moral relativism and realism with the subjective expressions of non-cognitivist views such as emotivism and prescriptivism. It provides an overview of the major competing views in meta-ethics, including a brief introduction to non-naturalism and error theory, setting the stage for deeper exploration in future discussions.

Takeaways

• 📚 Ethics is divided into three branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each with a distinct focus within the field of philosophy.
• 🌱 Meta-ethics is the foundational branch that explores the nature of morality itself, rather than providing guidelines for ethical behavior.
• 🛠 Normative ethics provides a framework for understanding how we should live our lives, focusing on principles that guide moral actions.
• 🎯 Applied ethics applies normative ethical theories to specific issues, such as justice, abortion, animal rights, and the death penalty.
• 🏈 Andrew Fisher uses a football game analogy to explain the relationship between the three branches of ethics, with players, referees, and pundits representing applied, normative, and meta-ethics respectively.
• 🤔 Meta-ethicists analyze the nature of ethics, akin to a football pundit trying to understand the game's underlying rules and structure.
• 🌐 Cognitivism in meta-ethics posits that moral claims attempt to describe reality and can be objectively true or false.
• 💬 Non-cognitivism, on the other hand, suggests that moral claims express emotions or attitudes rather than factual claims about reality.
• 😢 Emotivism, a form of non-cognitivism, views moral judgments as emotional expressions rather than statements about reality.
• 📜 Prescriptivism is another non-cognitivist view, where moral claims are seen as personal prescriptions or commands.
• 🏛 Moral relativism, a cognitivist view, holds that moral judgments are relative and not universally true, varying by culture or individual.
• 🌟 Moral realism asserts that moral values exist independently of human beliefs and can be discovered and understood as objectively true.
• 🔍 Error theory is a cognitivist stance that claims all moral claims are false because objective moral values do not exist.

Q & A

What are the three main branches of ethics in philosophy?

The three main branches of ethics in philosophy are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

What is the primary focus of meta-ethics?

Meta-ethics focuses on the underlying foundation of ethics, examining what morality is itself.

How does normative ethics differ from meta-ethics?

Normative ethics is concerned with providing a framework for ethics and guiding how we should live our lives, whereas meta-ethics explores the nature of morality itself.

What is the role of applied ethics in the context of the three branches?

Applied ethics applies normative ethical theories to specific issues, such as justice, abortion, animal rights, or the death penalty, dealing with practical ethical dilemmas.

Can you explain the analogy used to describe the relationship between the three branches of ethics?

The analogy compares the three branches to a football game: the players represent applied ethics, focusing on specific strategies; the referee represents normative ethics, concerned with underlying principles; and the meta ethicist is like a pundit or analyst, trying to understand the game itself.

What is cognitivism in meta-ethics?

Cognitivism is the view that moral claims are attempts to describe reality, expressing beliefs that can be objectively true or false.

How does non-cognitivism differ from cognitivism?

Non-cognitivism holds that moral claims do not describe reality but instead express non-belief states, such as emotions, which are neither true nor false.

What are the main views within non-cognitivism?

The main views within non-cognitivism include emotivism, prescriptivism, and expressivism, each offering a different perspective on the nature of moral claims as emotional expressions or prescriptions.

What is moral relativism, and how does it contrast with moral realism?

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are relative and not universally true, whereas moral realism asserts that moral values exist independently of individual beliefs and can be objectively true or false.

Can you describe the difference between cultural relativism and agent relativism?

Cultural relativism states that moral judgments are based on the cultural beliefs of a society, while agent relativism defines morality based on the individual's actions, with speaker relativism focusing on the speaker's moral framework.

What is error theory in meta-ethics, and how does it relate to cognitivism?

Error theory is a cognitivist view that states moral claims can be true or false, but it argues that all moral claims are false because objective moral values do not exist, suggesting that we are mistaken when we make moral judgments.

What is the significance of the distinction between natural and non-natural moral realism?

Natural moral realism suggests that moral properties are part of the natural world and can be reduced to natural properties, while non-natural moral realism asserts that moral values are real, independent of nature, and cannot be reduced to non-ethical properties.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Ethics and its Branches

This paragraph introduces the concept of ethics within philosophy, emphasizing the importance of meta-ethics, which explores the foundation and scope of moral values. It outlines the three main branches of ethics: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics focuses on the nature of morality itself, while normative ethics provides a framework for how we should live, discussing concepts like consequentialism and moral law. Applied ethics applies these theories to specific issues such as justice, abortion, and animal rights. The analogy of a football game is used to illustrate the relationship between these branches, with players representing applied ethics, the referee for normative ethics, and a pundit for meta-ethics, highlighting their respective roles in the 'game' of ethical discourse.

05:00

🤔 Exploring Meta-Ethical Views on Morality

This paragraph delves into the various meta-ethical views that attempt to define what morality is. It starts by differentiating between cognitivism and non-cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that moral claims describe objective realities and can be true or false, whereas non-cognitivists argue that moral claims express emotions or attitudes, not factual claims. The paragraph discusses emotivism, prescriptivism, and expressivism as forms of non-cognitivism, where moral judgments are seen as emotional expressions, personal prescriptions, or expressions of desires or attitudes. On the cognitivist side, moral relativism and moral realism are presented, with the former suggesting that moral judgments are relative and not universally true, and the latter asserting that moral values exist independently of individual beliefs. The paragraph concludes with an introduction to error theory, which posits that all moral claims are false because objective moral values do not exist. The summary sets the stage for further exploration of moral realism and its support in future discussions.

Keywords

💡Metaethics

Metaethics is the branch of ethics that explores the nature, origin, and the meaning of moral properties and values. In the video, it is presented as the foundational layer of ethics, distinct from normative and applied ethics, focusing on what morality itself is. It is compared to a football pundit analyzing the game rather than participating in it, highlighting its role in understanding the broader concepts of ethics rather than specific applications.

💡Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is concerned with establishing a framework for ethical behavior, guiding how individuals should act. The script discusses it as one of the three branches of ethics, emphasizing its role in providing principles and rules for moral conduct. It is likened to a referee in a football game, setting the rules for the players, or issues of applied ethics, to follow.

💡Applied Ethics

Applied ethics involves taking normative ethical theories and applying them to specific, real-world issues such as justice, abortion, or animal rights. In the video, applied ethics is compared to football players focusing on strategies to score goals, illustrating its practical application of ethical theories to particular problems.

💡Cognitivism

Cognitivism is the view that moral claims are assertions that can be objectively true or false. The video describes it as the belief that when someone makes a moral claim, they are attempting to describe reality. For example, stating 'it is wrong to steal' is seen as an objective claim about the world, which can be evaluated for its truth.

💡Non-Cognitivism

Non-cognitivism holds that moral claims do not describe reality but instead express emotions or attitudes. The video explains that non-cognitivists believe moral statements like 'killing is wrong' are expressions of disapproval rather than factual claims. This view is contrasted with cognitivism to highlight the difference in how moral language is understood.

💡Emotivism

Emotivism is a form of non-cognitivism where moral judgments are seen as expressions of the speaker's emotions. The script uses the example of saying 'boo to killing' to illustrate how emotivists view moral language as emotionally charged rather than factually descriptive.

💡Prescriptivism

Prescriptivism is another non-cognitivist view where moral claims are considered imperatives or commands, such as 'do not kill'. The video describes prescriptivism as a perspective where moral language is not about describing reality but about issuing personal directives.

💡Expressivism

Expressivism, in the context of metaethics, suggests that moral claims express the speaker's desires or attitudes. The video explains it as an extension of emotivism, where saying 'killing is wrong' conveys a desire against killing, indicating a personal stance rather than an objective fact.

💡Quasi-Realism

Quasi-realism is a nuanced position within expressivism that accepts moral claims as if they were real properties, despite being rooted in emotional attitudes. The video mentions it as a form of expressivism that attempts to bridge the gap between subjective emotions and objective reality in moral discourse.

💡Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are relative to cultural, societal, or individual perspectives and not objectively true for everyone. The video discusses different forms of relativism, such as cultural and agent relativism, to illustrate how moral claims can vary based on the context of the speaker or the moral agent.

💡Moral Realism

Moral realism is the belief that moral values exist independently of human beliefs and can be discovered and understood as objective truths. The video describes it as a popular philosophical stance, with a distinction made between naturalistic and non-naturalistic forms of moral realism, the latter arguing that moral properties cannot be reduced to natural properties.

💡Error Theory

Error theory is a cognitivist position that asserts all moral claims are false because objective moral values do not exist. The video presents it as a view that acknowledges the possibility of truth or falsity in moral claims but ultimately concludes that our moral beliefs are mistaken.

Highlights

Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that examines the scope and foundation of moral values and properties.

Ethics is divided into three branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

Meta-ethics focuses on the nature of morality itself, unlike normative and applied ethics.

Normative ethics provides a framework for how we should live our lives ethically.

Applied ethics applies normative ethical theories to specific issues like justice, abortion, and animal rights.

An analogy compares applied ethics to players, normative ethics to referees, and meta-ethics to football pundits.

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism are the major competing views in meta-ethics.

Cognitivists believe moral claims describe reality and can be objectively true or false.

Non-cognitivists argue moral claims express emotions or attitudes, not objective truths.

Emotivism is a form of non-cognitivism where moral judgments are emotional expressions.

Prescriptivism holds that moral claims are personal prescriptions rather than reality claims.

Expressivism suggests moral claims express desires or attitudes towards actions.

Quasi-realism is a form of expressivism that accepts moral claims as if they were real properties.

Moral relativism asserts that moral judgments are relative and not universally true.

Cultural relativism, agent relativism, and speaker relativism are forms of moral relativism.

Moral realism is the view that moral values exist independently of individual beliefs.

Natural moral realism reduces moral properties to natural or non-ethical properties.

Non-natural moral realism asserts that moral values are real and independent of nature.

Error theory claims that while moral claims can be true or false, all such claims are false due to the non-existence of objective moral values.

Transcripts

Mehta ethics this is the important

branch of ethics in philosophy that

looks at the scope and foundation of

moral values and moral properties so

what does that mean what a better

explain this let's begin by looking at

ethics in general there are three

branches of ethics and philosophy meta

ethics and normative ethics and applied

ethics meta ethics would be the

underlying foundation of the other two

and focuses on what morality is itself

normative ethics isn't concerned with

what morality is but seeks to give us a

framework for ethics and tells us how we

ought to live our lives like should we

act in a way they will bring about the

best consequences or should we act in a

way as to conform with moral law there

are three main views of normative ethics

and we can explore these in another

video applied ethics seeks to apply

normative ethical theories to specific

issues and deals with topics like

justice abortion animal rights or the

death penalty Andrew Fisher explains the

relationship between these three with an

analogy of a football game the players

can be thought of as issues of applied

ethics they are concerned with specific

strategies of getting the ball in the

net

just like applied ethics is concerned

with how ethics is applied strategically

on certain issues then the referee can

be seen as the issues of normative

ethics the normative ethicist is

concerned with underlying principles

which guide the applied SSE's

and finally a meta ethicist can be

thought of as a football pundit or

analyst who does not apply the ethics or

interpret the rules but tries to

understand what is going on in the game

itself is it all subjective or or their

actual rules that must be followed

basically a meta ethicist looks at the

work of ethics and tries to make sense

of everything that is going on so now it

would be good to explore the major

competing views in many epics the views

which try to tell us what morality

actually is with a few exceptions most

views can be divided into cognitivism or

non cognitivism for those who study

morality I am aware of some views may

not be strictly one or the other like

quasi realism

we're going to try to stick with the

general views to keep it simple in short

cognitivism says that moral claims are

ascribing or attempting to describe

reality if someone expresses a moral

claim they are expressing a belief if a

cognitivist says it is wrong to steal

and she has said that what is going on

is something about the world the deeds

are objectively true or false non

cognitivists do not think moral claims

are attempting to describe reality

rather as Andrew Fisher explains they

say if a person makes a moral claim they

are expressing a non belief state such

as an emotion for example to say that

killing is wrong is to express

disapproval towards killing put crudely

it is if you were saying boo killing and

as you would expect

emotionally disapproving or approving of

something cannot be true or false hence

the title non cognitivism you're not

making claims about the world that could

be true or false you're expressing

emotions about how you feel which would

not be cognitive but emotional and

therefore neither true or false

within non cognitivism there are various

ways of looking at this the most

well-known is aj ayers and emotivism

this use dates what we commonly think of

when we think of non cognitive ism moral

judgments are not claims about reality

but are emotional expressions of the

speaker but this is not the only non

cognitivist view

prescriptivism says that moral claims

are not claims about reality but our

personal prescriptions under

prescriptivism if I say killing is wrong

all I am saying is do not kill or I do

not prescribed killing a third view is

expressive isn't this says moral claim

express a desire like attitude if I say

killing is wrong I am expressing a

desire I have mainly I do not like

killing it is more similar to emotivism

but it's sort of an extension of it

under expressive ISM we get quasi

realism which essentially is a form of

expressive ism but accepts the moral

claim project emotional attitudes as if

they were real properties hence it

claims to be quasi realist and

understanding morality there are of

course many other views in non

cognitivism but these are enough to give

us a general idea of what non-cognitive

is believe on the other side of the

aisle are the cognitivist theories which

again say moral claims are expressing or

attempting to express true or false

claims about reality first is moral

relativism relativists do believe when

someone makes a moral claim they are

expressing a belief they have about

reality but they say moral judgment

expressed beliefs about something

relative and are not objective are

universally true there are several

different forms of relativism

first there is cultural relativism which

says moral judgments express beliefs

which describe the cultural beliefs of

the society agent relativism says

morality is defined by the individual

speaker relativism which says moral

claims are relative to the speaker this

is slightly different than agent

relativism as Andrew Fisher explains but

why is it different from agent

relativism consider an example if I say

the action of the rebel soldier in

Darfur is morally wrong then the speaker

relativist would be interested in my

moral framework as the speaker on the

other hand the agent relativist would

focus on the soldier's actions as the

moral agent speaker relativists care

about the one making the claim agent

relativist focus on the one performing

action slightly different but both forms

of relativism the next view is moral

realism moral realism has become the

most popular view among philosophers and

in later videos we will specifically

argue for a form of moral realism called

non naturalism Kevin de Lappe defines

moral realism as the view that moral

values exist in a way that is cosmic and

evidentially independent from the

beliefs of anyone in everyone such that

evidence and beliefs do not determine or

constitute those values though they may

adequately and reliably measure or

reflect them so basically moral values

are true regardless of what the

individual thinks individuals may

acquire knowledge about what moral

truths are and learn to abide by them

but they are not determined or depend on

the individual although there are many

forms of moral realism

it is helpful to split things in the two

at this stage natural moral realism says

moral properties are part of the natural

world and can be reduced to natural or

not ethical properties basically

morality would be part of the natural

world and we can discover it a popular

level account of natural moral realism

is given to us by Sam Harris in his book

the moral landscape you try to reduce

moral goodness to well-being and moral

badness to pain in contrast there is non

natural moral realism which says that

moral properties cannot be reduced to

non ethical parts moral values are real

and independent of nature they merely

describe actions in nature as either

good or best GE more famously taught

good cannot be redefined to be something

like pleasant pleasurable or happiness

according to the non naturalist these

things can only be described as morally

good or bad but cannot themselves be the

essence of moral goodness

the last day of cognate ism we will

review is Jael Mackey's error theory it

is a cousin to this view in that it

states moral claims can be true or false

but says they are all false that we are

in error when we make moral claims about

something being true because essentially

objective moral values do not exist

hence the title error theory there are

many other forms and sub forms in meta

ethics we have not discussed but this is

a general overview of the majority of

the views in meta ethics in later videos

we will look closer and moral realism

what it is and why we think the evidence

supports its true