A2 Religious Ethics

Meta-EthicsIndependent Learning Booklet

Contents

Unit Outline

Key Philosophers

Glossary

What is Meta-ethics?

Cognitive Theories

Naturalism

Intuitionism

Non-cognitive Theories

Class Revision Topic1 The use of ethical language and how meta ethics differs from

normative ethics2 Cognitive approaches3 Non-cognitive approaches4 The strengths and weakness of each approach5 Exam Question6 Review Exam Question

Emotivism

Prescriptivism

Wider Reading List

The contents of this booklet are taken from:

Mayled J (2007) OCR Religious Ethics for A2Oliphant J (2013) OCR A2 Religious Studies: Religious Ethics: My Revision NotesEyre et al (2009) Philosophy and Ethics A2Pojman L.P (1998) Ethics: Discovering Right and WrongBaron P (2012) Religious Studies A2 Ethics

ENGAGE! When you are reading, you will come across the ‘Engage’ sign, stop and think. Make sure that you know your own opinion before you continue.

DO! Complete this activity before you carry on

CHECK! Check your own understanding by reading this section and then adding any detail to your work

APPLY! Now check your understanding by completing these thought points

Essay Questions

1. ‘Ethical language is meaningless.’ Discuss. (35 marks)2. ‘Ethicists mean different things when they use the term ‘good’.’ Discuss. (35

marks)3. ‘Ethical language is subjective.’ Discuss. (35 marks)4. To what extent is ethical language meaningful? (35 marks) Jan 20105. ‘Ethical statements are no more than expressions of emotion.’ Discuss. (35

marks) June 2011

Wider Reading

For those of you aiming at an A or A*, you need to be able to critically assess these views. This means that you will need to read more widely around this subject. In your textbook, there is a list of books that you could use for this wider reading. The website: Philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk is also helpful for more detailed information. One particularly good article that outlines that naturalism is successful is to be found here: http://philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/images/stories/topics/philippa_foot1.pdfPlease let me know if you want to look at anything in particular and I will help you find it.

Glossary

Normative ethics

Meta Ethics

Applied Ethics

Empirical evidence

Cognitive

Non-cognitive

Analytic statements

Synthetic statements

Naturalism

Non-naturalism

Intuitionism

Prima facie duties

Strong Verification Principle

Weak Verification Principle

Emotivism

Boo-Hurrah Theory

Prescriptivism

Key Philosophers

F H Bradley

David Hume

H A Pritchard

G E Moore

W D Ross

C L Stevenson

A J Ayer

R M Hare

Lesson 1 Homework: What is Meta-ethics?

Meta-ethics is different to normative ethics (specific ethical systems, like natural law or utilitarianism) because it looks at the language behind the systems themselves. Meta-ethics is the analysis of language.

Read page 162 of the Mayled textbook. Complete the thought point activity.Add any new words to your glossaryBefore you go any further – consider your own perspective. What do you think? Is the statement ‘Abortion is wrong’ a fact (something that can be seen as either true or false) or simply an opinion? Note your ideas in the margin.

Cognitive vs Non-Cognitive

Some moral realists hold that moral facts are objective facts that are observable in the world. Things are good and bad independently of us. Moral values, such as kind and wicked, are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This is the view of the cognitivist. According to them, moral statements describe the world. If I say that murder is wrong, then I have given to murder the property of wrongness – so my statement is objectively either true or false. Do you agree? Note your thoughts in the margin.

Conversely, non-congnitivists believe that when people are making a moral statement, they are not describing the world, but expressing their feeling, or telling people what to do. As non-cognitivists say that moral statements are not descriptive, they cannot be described as true or false – they are subjective. Meta-ethics is not concerned with what is right or wrong action in a particular circumstance, but with what it means to be moral. This is also called moral-antirealism.

Over the course of 6 lessons, we are going to look at a range of theories that are Cognitive and Non-cognitive.

1) Now, watch the following Youtube clip. Intro to Meta Ethics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb2enY1c60o This should consolidate what you have already learned.

2) Now, read the S A Burns article and answer the questions.

3) In your next lesson, you will be expected to know and define meta-ethics, cognitive, non-cognitive, moral realist, moral anti-realist. Create cue-cards for each of these terms. You will also be expected to consider whether your view is realist, or anti-realist.

4) You will also be expected to discuss what the word ‘good’means, according to SA Burns. Work out what you agree/disagree with!

Lesson 2 Homework:Cognitive Theories of Meta-Ethics

The difference between meta ethics and normative ethics is simple. Meta Ethics asks what moral statements mean and examines ethical language such as ‘good’, ‘ought’ and ‘wrong’. In other words, what do we mean when we use these words? Normative ethics gives a guide form moral behaviour. In effect, it answers the question ‘What ought I to do in situation x?’ The ethical theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative ethics.

You have already established that there are two branches of meta ethics (cognitivism and non-cognitivism). If you have a cognitive attitude to language, you believe that we can have moral knowledge. In this session, we are going to look at the cognitivist theories.

A cognitivist would say that the statement ‘murder is wrong’ is a statement of fact.

Ethical Naturalism

1) Read page 164 in your textbook and then read through and make notes on the following information. Use Connell Note-taking.

2) Answer the questions that follow.

If a naturalist view of meta-ethics is taken, it might support normative ethical theories such as Natural Law and Utilitarianism. Both are different, yet they start from the same assumptions. The first premise is that moral LAWS exist. The next is that they can be experienced and understood through an analysis of (a) the natural world or (b) human nature.

A naturalist view of ethics argues that, once verified by nature, moral statements are objectively true. For a utilitarian, the statement ‘murder is wrong’ is true because the person killed is harmed and this prevents his or her happiness. In Natural Law the statement ‘murder is wrong’ is true for different reasons, that is, because it prevents the natural fulfilment of the individual. Ethical naturalists claim that the use of words good/bad when discussing morality (moral discourse) can be discovered through reason just as it discovers other facts.

F H Bradley (1846-1924)Bradley taught at Oxford. He was regarded as radical at the time because he rejected the British school of Locke, Hume, Bentham. He focussed instead on continental philosophy. Through his lectures and books, Bradley introduced a British audience to the philosophy of Hegel (1770-1831). Hegelian ideas dominated much of continental European intellectual study in the 19th Century. Hegelian concepts are often complex, obscure and almost poetic. Hegel wrote about: the Spirit of the Age, that there is a ‘Geist’ or absolute spirit that is the underlying principle of the world, guiding it to fulfil its purpose. Hegel believed

that everything has a telos or purpose that harmonises matter and spirit. This telos is when human minds and Spirit (Geist) come together as one. He believed that society is the way that all human minds come together and is the only means by which harmony with the Spirit (Geist can be achieved. He called this the ‘Divine Ideas on earth’. This Divine Idea existing on earth in the State, and moral life reflecting that spirit. Hegel builds up a philosophical vision based on a priori concepts and ideas which he asserts with absolute confidence.

Bradley in turn translated, adopted & adapted these concepts. For Bradley the Universal Good Will was unquestioned. Bradley’s universalistic approach to philosophy encompassed everything and his moral system led to the individual achieving oneness with God. Each individual became one with the Good Will by accepting his station and its duties. What was good, bad, right and wrong was clearly identifiable. In some ways, his approach was based on observing the world and drawing moral conclusions. So he had no hesitation from his observation in asserting that finding one’s station and duties in life is the highest good. According to Bradley the individual mind acts according to the will of the infinite mind when it acts according to the will of society/the state. He believed that obedience was for the good of society is the only way the individual learns traditions and duties. Personal freedoms are exchanged/sacrificed for the collective good will. Similar again to Hegel, he argues that evolution supports the notion that society is constantly striving to improve itself. He said, ‘the European certainly is morally a higher being than a savage.’

Quotes from Bradley’s Ethical Studies:

‘To be moral is to live in accordance with the moral tradition of one’s country.’‘If a man is to know what is right, he should have imbibed the spirit of his community, and its general and special beliefs as to right and wrong.’

1) Explain in your own words the ideas of Hegel.

2) How did they influence Bradley?

3) Create cue cards to explain the ideas of Ethical Naturalism

4) Make sure you learn and can explain the quotes.

5) We shall be evaluating the ideas of Bradley in the next lesson. What strengths and weaknesses are there?

Circle the different words/phrases that refer to Naturalism

Lastly, watch this Jonny Greenshields clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjiSPsf_6j4

Lesson 3 Homework: Intuitionism

G E Moore was a cognitivist who thought that the ethical naturalism of Bradley was flawed because it committed the naturalistic fallacy (read page 165 if you need to go over this again). As he was still a cognitivist, he answered the problem of ethical naturalism using the theory of intuitionism.

Intuitionism – G.E. Moore, H.A Prichard and W.D Ross

‘If I am asked ‘What is good?’ My answer is good is good and that is the end of the matter. Or if I am asked ‘How is good to be defined?’ My answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is the end of the matter’.

Learn this quote.

Read and make notes on pages 166-169 and answer the questions in THOUGHT POINT

The Open Question Argument

This isn’t covered in your textbook, but is important to know. Moore argued that goodness cannot be a COMPLEX analysable property of an action. For example, a horse can be broken down into animal, mammal, four legs, hairy tail – a COMPLEX idea. Because goodness isn’t a complex idea, it must either be a SIMPLE indefinable quality or it doesn’t refer to anything at all. Since ethics isn’t an illusion, goodness must consist in a simple, indefinable quality, like the colour yellow.

Cognitive

Non-Cognitive

Objective

Subjective

Ethical statements can be verified and falsified

Ethical statements cannot be verified and falsified

Moore pointed out in the naturalistic fallacy, of implying that goodness was identical to some specific property such as pleasure, is susceptible to the OPEN QUESTION attack. Suppose I say: “this ice cream causes me so much pleasure” and then say “this ice-cream is good!” The OPEN QUESTION attack suggests I can always ask the question, “it produces pleasure, but nonetheless is it morally good?” If I can answer ‘no’ to this point then I have proved that goodness is something independent of pleasure.

Before you go any further, complete the table outlining the different cognitive theories. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these theories?

Lesson 4 Homework: Non-Cognitive Theories of Meta-Ethics - Emotivism

Read through and make Connell Notes on pages 170-174. You need to know Ayer and Stevenson for Emotivism. Take particular note of quotes that you could use in your work.

The Verification PrincipleWe will go over this in more detail when we cover Religious Language. However, for the purposes of this topic, you do need to know some of the background. The Vienna Circle was a group of philosophers including Schlick and Neurath who gave rise to the Logical Positivist movement. Logical positivism is a view about which statements are cognitively meaningful. This is known as the strong verification principle. This means that as far as the Vienna Circle are concerned, They believed that statements can be meaningful, only if they can satisfy one of two criteria:

1) It is a tautology (can be known a priori) – a logical statements that can be found true by definition. For example triangles have three sides or all widows have been married etc.

2) It can be verified by empirical observation and actual experience. For example, we can test the boiling point of water.

This idea has lots of problems:a) We cannot make statements about history. We cannot empirically verify that

Julius Caesar actually existed

b) Scientific laws become meaningless. To say that gravity is constant at all places in earth is impossible to verify as I can only be in one place at one time.

c) Richard Swinburne suggests that universal statements, such as ‘all ravens are black’ and ‘all humans are mortal’ become meaningless by the strong verification principle

A J Ayer modified the verification principle and this is known as the weak verification principle. Ayer argues that for a statement to be meaningful it must either be a tautology (it can be known a priori) or it can be verified IN PRINCIPLE. Ayer states that we do not have to conclusively prove something by direct observation. Verification in principle means that in order for a statement to

be meaningful, we need to suggest how it COULD be verified. Ayers own example for this is ‘there are mountains on the far side of the moon’, which, at the time, could not be verified. This was not a meaningless statement because as we can suggest that if we were to orbit the moon we would be able to check the truthfulness of the statement.

Circle the statements that apply to Emotivism

What do you think about this? Work out the strengths and weaknesses of emotivism by filling in the table.

Lesson 5 Homework: Prescriptivism

1) Read through and make Connell Notes on Prescriptivism (from the textbook 175-176) and below.

2) Complete the THOUGHT POINT questions. Please answer these fully, using evidence to support your ideas.

3) Make sure that this workbook is complete.

It is sometimes difficult to make a distinction between emotivism and prescriptivism. According to Ayer; when I say something like ‘You were wrong to steal that money’, I am in effect saying that ‘You stole that money’ with a tone of disapproval (boo). However, to a certain extent, emotivism does hope to influence the way we behave. I am expressing my opinion and I am hoping to influence yours. For the prescriptivist I am saying ‘I wouldn’t steal that money and neither should you.’

Words like ‘good’ are meaningless

Ethical statements are just expressions of feelings

Ethical statements cannot be verified

Words like ‘good’ are meaningful

Ethical statements are objective

Ethical statements are subjective

Hare makes an important distinction here that is helpful. Emotivism for Hare uses indicative statements (statements of observation) e.g: ‘The man is running down the road’. This is an observation similar to ‘You stole that money’ (boo). Hare argues that moral statements are not indicative statements, but they are imperative statements. Instead of observing a man running down the road, you are TELLING the man to run down the road. Instead of stating ‘You stole that money’, you are telling people not to steal money.

The key point for Hare is the universalizability of prescriptivism. He believes that when an individual prefers one thing rather than something else this implies that this preference would also be good for everybody. He bases this on the Golden Rule of Christianity ‘In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you’. He argues that if such moral principles are universal it follows that they should be obeyed.

Prescriptivism adds an appealing dimension to the idea that ethical statements are expressions of opinion by saying that they also give directions as to how we ought to act. Hare states that ethical statements are universalizable; however, this does not mean that they are objective. There is no way to judge whether one person’s preferences should be followed over another person’s. There is nothing to stop us changing our preferences.

Lesson 6 Homework: Review

Complete the review questions at the end of the unit and revise for a knowledge test next lesson.

Lesson 7 Homework:

Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless. [35]

AO1

Candidates may begin with an account of the work of the Logical Positivists, possibly even giving an account of the forming of the Vienna Circle and the writings which led these philosophers to come together. Some may mention Wittgenstein’s Tractatus but they should be aware that he was not himself a member of the Circle.

This may lead to an exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the Verification Principle, with some demonstration of the self-refuting nature of the principle itself. Some may use examples from religious language of the kinds of statements which the Vienna circle were accusing of meaninglessness such as; ‘God is all-loving, all powerful, your God is a jealous God.’

Some candidates may take their arguments towards an explanation of the later writings of Wittgenstein and introduce the ideas of language games; and his claim that language gets its meaning from the context in which it is used or the rules of the game you are playing at any given time.

Others may explore the approach taken by the Vienna Circle to analytic and synthetic statements, explaining the need for synthetic statements to be verifiable by empirical evidence if they were to be considered meaningful. In this context some may address the issue of strong and weak verification.

AO2

In their evaluation candidates may assess the underlying assumption of Logical Positivism that it is only scientific propositions which can accurately describe the reality of our world. Arguably not religious language but also poetry and music contribute a great deal to our understanding of reality. Who would say that a Shakespearean sonnet tells us nothing about the world?

Others may assess the extent to which Wittgenstein helped to make all kinds of language meaningful again by his introduction of language games. They may discuss the extent to which he only allowed for communication within the game and the implications for attempts to communicate with people playing a game with different rules.

Others may have read philosophers such as Vincent Brummer or D Z Phillips, using their work to assess the extent to which treating religious sentences as if they are failed scientific ones is to commit an error of understanding.

Complete this table, outlining the different theories

Philosophers Theory Advantages Disadvantages

Cog

nitiv

ist

Naturalism

F.H Bradley

Intuitionism

G.E Moore

H.A. Prichard

W.D Ross

Meta-ethics

Philosophers Theory Advantages DisadvantagesN

on-c

ogni

tivis

t

Emotivism

A.J. Ayer

C.L.Stevenson

Prescriptivism

R.M. Hare

Reduce each theory to one key idea such as ‘you can’t define yellow’ or ‘Boo-Hurrah Theory’.