• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What is meant by meta-ethics?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

January 2002 Foundation a) What is meant by meta-ethics Ethics is the study of moral standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy," meaning "What is good?" "What is bad" etc. However, Meta-ethics is the study of this moral language and of what different people mean when they use ethical terminology. There are many accepted schools of thought that give definitions of ethical language. Meta-ethics is the study of how these theories account for moral language. Take, for example, Ethical Naturalism; this theory takes it origins from the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that everything in the universe has a purpose, which he called its 'final cause,' for which it has been designed. In fulfilling this purpose things can achieve 'goodness.' From this Ethical naturalists believe that 'good' can be explained in terms of features of the natural world. However, ethical non-naturalists believe that you cannot determine goodness in terms of natural phenomena. They believe that goodness is simply a term we use to describe something, not something which can be discovered within the nature of something. ...read more.

Middle

wall he has painted is purple not yellow and so moral judgements will be self evident in different ways to other people.) Logical positivists on the other hand, believe moral language to be non-cognitive, that is to say that it does not give any information but merely expresses the emotions or feelings of the person using it. Two approaches sprung from this branch of thought: Emotivism and prescriptivism. Emotivists believe that by saying something is 'good' you are saying that you approve of it, and in saying something is bad, you disapprove of it. Therefore, there can be no factual evidence for, or to the contrary of moral judgements as they are merely expressions of opinion and are based on personal values, not facts. Prescriptivists take this one step further by arguing that by saying that something is 'good' you are not only saying that you approve of it, but you are prescribing this course of action to everyone in this particular situation. This theory was suggested by R.M Hare in his book The language of Morals [1952]. ...read more.

Conclusion

Now most non-religious people would accept that we gain our morality from our up bringing and our culture. From childhood, we our taught what is considered to be right and wrong in our society. Therefore, someone on one side of the world can grow up thinking that cannibalism is wrong, and another in a different part of the world can think it is right. Therefore, what is "good" varies around the globe. Another school of thought that sprung from Logical Positivism believes that no one can ever know what is good, as moral language is pure an expression of emotions or feelings at a particular time. This is called Emotivism. Therefore, you can replace "x is good" with "I approve of x". Now the likelihood of the entire world approving of one thing is extremely slim. Religious people, however, believe that our conscience is God's voice telling us what to do and would argue that God does tell everyone the same thing but some people choose to ignore it. So a Christian standpoint may agree with the title statement and say that "Everyone knows what is good, but everyone does not obey." Charlie Matthews 12CAS 05/05/2007 1 of 2 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. What is meant by Meta Ethics? Meta ethics helps to establish what constitutes ...

    The final theory is prescriptivism. The scholar associated with this R.M. Hare. He argued that moral statements do not just express a feeling but recommend that something should be done as well. This is a way of dealing with ethical language because it does not just say that the statement

  2. Explain and discuss the four major theories of meta-ethics; Naturalism, Emotivism, Intuitionism and Prescriptivism.

    Intuitionism, on the other hand, rejects the idea of naturalism, and instead accepts the idea that moral facts are based on, and are a result of our own intuition. Intuitionists like Moore, believe that moral judgement cannot be proved empirically and that scientific observation and analysis cannot verify it, and also that moral judgement exists in human intuition.

  1. Religious Ethics are not the best approach to environmental ethics'. Discuss.

    However, Fletcher's ethic is too vague to be considered in any depth as we can't define what is the most loving thing, who it's for or even what 'love' means. Attfield suggests a deeper interpretation of Christian teachings in order to accurately devise an ethical basis towards the environment.

  2. Discuss some of the issues raised in Meta-Ethics. How convincing is the view that, ...

    A differing method is the 'deontological' approach to ethics, which has its origins in the Greek word 'deon' meaning 'duty'. Unlike the teleological approach, this one is a duty-based criterion for gauging what is 'good': something is 'good' if it fulfils it duty.

  1. Business Ethics

    the situation, a crisis of confidence will soon emerged (Cenker and Madison (1996). In Japan, Chou Audit Corporation was charged in court for failing to detect "window dressing" practice of Yamaichi Securities - a stock-broking firm that went bust in 1997.

  2. Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than ...

    This concept seems illogical and highly improbable. Morality is not simply about emotions or the way we feel about something; it can be debated rationally. By using human reasoning and recognition we do have verifiable evidence that some situations and experiences are more positive or beneficial than others.

  1. The Ethical Debate Concerning Cloning.

    either by defending against attacks on the Orthodox Church's teachings and practice, or by providing ethical guidance concerning issues that arise from our highly technological age. Very few claims to uncontroverted teaching can be made. Most positions of the discussion should be understood as the current consensus, sincerely and widely

  2. Explain the different ways in which 'right' and 'wrong' are used in metaethics

    One should just weigh up the moral obligations they held to the different sides of an argument when making an ethical decision, and your intuition would tell you which obligation is greater.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work