META-ETHICS

Non-cognitive theories:

EMOTIVISM and PRESCRIPTIVISM

Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture

Abortion Gay marriage Capital punishment Genetically modified

food Legalisation of

marijuana

Moral disagreement seems to be even more widespread between different

cultures (& historical periods) Slavery Cannibalism Female

“circumcision” The use of terrorism

for political ends…

Suttee (or Sati)

People argue about moral issues

In a moral argument, we often give people reasons aimed at persuading them that our own position is correct and that their position is incorrect.

A different sort of case: chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream

Chocolate ice cream

tastes better

Nope, it’s vanilla all the way

Intervention

We recognise that some moral issues are very complex and difficult, and that our view on those issues might be mistaken.

On other issues, we are confident that our own views are correct and that people who do not share our views are mistaken. Sometimes we are even prepared to try to stop people acting on moral views that we take to be mistaken.

Examples: suttee & the use of terrorism

Our Central question: Is Morality “Objective”?

About 65 million years ago an asteroid collided with the earth, and this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

There is a prime number between 123,456 and 654,321.

All the shots fired at John F. Kennedy the day he was killed were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Saddam Hussein was executed On Thursday, March 27th 2008, Mr. Bennett wore

odd socks during his philosophy class.

“Objective”

Note two things about these sentences:– Each of these sentences is either true or false.– The truth or falsity of these sentences does not

depend at all on who makes the claim, when the claim is made or where the claim is made.

When a sentence has these properties, we’ll say that it makes an objective claim.

Some sentences are not “objective”

Example of a sentence that isn’t true or false:

– “Please pass the ketchup.”

– “Go to hell!”

Some sentences are not “objective”

Examples of a sentences whose truth depends on who makes them or when / where they are made:

– “I’m the oldest person in this room.”

– “It’s raining.”

I’m the oldest

I’m the oldest

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is

Objective The Appeal: It would make sense of the fact that we

often talk and act as though moral claims are correct or incorrect, and that we sometimes seem to think that people (including people in different cultures) have moral views which are mistaken.

Capital punishment is right (in some

cases).

No! Capital punishment is

always wrong.

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is

Objective The Puzzles Metaphysics: If some

moral claims are true, then there must be facts that make them true. What could these facts possibly be?

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is

Objective Epistemology: How

can we know which moral claims are true?

Is abortion morally

permissible?

Emotivism

A moral theory that suggests that when we say something is wrong, we are merely expressing an emotional reaction to a certain set of events or facts.

There are no ‘facts’ about what we say morally, we’re just expressing an emotional preference.

Emotivism

The distinction between asserting you have a feeling and expressing that feeling.

Examples– “I am disgusted by your behavior.” vs. – “I am in severe pain.” vs. “Ouch!!!!!!”– “I am sexually aroused.” vs. ….

Assertions are either true or false; expressions of feelings are not.

Emotivism

The central idea of Emotivism is that, while moral claims look like assertions, they are actually expressions of feeling.

Thus Emotivism is sometimes described as The “Rah!! Boo!!” Theory.

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion…grrr!

Emotivism

Gay people ought to be allowed to

get married.

= Gay marriage… yeah!!

Emotivism and moral ‘reasoning’

Question: according to Emotivism, what’s going on when you try to persuade someone to have the same moral attitude as you?

Abortion is morally wrong! It’s killing an

innocent human being, it’s murder…

Emotivism and moral reasoning

Unlike some other emotive expressions, the emotive expressions used in ethical claims have a tendency to have a persuasive or “magnetic”

effect on listeners – perhaps because of childhood conditioning.

Abortion.. Grr!

Eating ice cream out of the tub.. Ew.

Emotivism, again

So a fuller account of the meaning of a moral sentence might be:

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude.

Abortion…

. Please share this attitude.

=

or,=

Advantages of Emotivism

Captures the link between ethics and emotions.

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Advantages of emotivism

Emotivism can explain moral disagreement: if you think abortion is morally OK and I think it is morally wrong, then:– It’s not that one of us has a false belief, but– our desires conflict with one another.

• Rachels’ example: “I favor gun-control legislation, and you are opposed to it”

Emotivism and objectivity

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude.

Abortion…

. Please share this attitude.

=

or,=

Disadvantages of Emotivism

If Emotivism is correct, then morality is not objective, thus

– it makes no sense to say that other people’s moral views are mistaken

– nor does it make any sense to say that our own previous moral views were mistaken.

Abortion… Grrr!

No it isn’t.

???

Disadvantages of Emotivism

Killing Jews is morally

OK.

THAT’S NOT

TRUE!

Disadvantages of Emotivism

The Emotivist account of moral argument and moral deliberation does not distinguish between moral arguments that (A) invoke false factual claims, vs(B) invoke true factual claims.

But we tend to think that moral attitudes formed under the (b) conditions are better justified than those formed under the (a) conditions.

Using false factual claims to influence emotions

Capital punishment

is right.

But 10% of people jailed

for murder are later found innocent.

Capital punishment

is right.

But it’s cheaper to jail someone for life than try them for the

death sentence.

Appealing to personal interest to influence emotions

Abortion is wrong.

If you say that, your sister is immoral.

Abortion is wrong.

An unwanted baby wreck’s the mother’s

life.

Relying on abnormal psychological states to influence

emotions

Capital punishment

is wrong.

But that b******d

murdered your father!

Capital punishment

is wrong.

But ‘an eye for an eye’ seems to be a good principle of

justice, doesn’t it?

Prescriptivism

In groups of three/ four, read the handout on PRESCRIPTIVISM and try to answer the questions on the hand out.

Be prepared for an Apprentice-style grilling Afterwards…