what is meant by meta-ethics?
Alex McPhee Religious Studies- Ethics Q3a) Describe what is meant by meta-ethics. Meta-ethics is a term used to describe the language of morality and the study of what we are actually doing when we use words such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong"; when we talk about something being good is our belief just subjective or are we referring to something objective, factual and real? Meta-ethical philosophers concentrate on trying to define what our moral language actually means rather than trying to find the answers to ethical issues. Studying this language is difficult, partly because we use these words in everyday conversation (for instance, "I found a good pair of walking boots."), whereas in a moral context the words can mean something very different. The philosophers who approach these questions can be categorised in various ways, for example having cognitive or non cognitive views. A cognitivist believes moral statements are about facts and can be classified as true or false. They believe that a statement such as "murder is wrong" is propositional and therefore its truth can be known. A non-cognitivist believes that moral statements are not propositions and are neither true nor false. For example, a non-cognitivist would say the statement "murder is wrong" is not based on facts and its truth or falsity cannot be known. An example of a non- cognitive philosopher is
animal experimentation
EXAMINE AND CONSIDER RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL RESPONSES TO ANIMAL EXPERMINATATIONS In this Essay I will be examining and considering religious and ethical responses to animal experimentation reviewing whether the argument for or against outweighs the other. One of the questions facing society today is whether animals should be used in scientific experimentation. Animal experimentation is widely used to develop a range of medicines and to test the safety of them and other products. But many of theses experiments cause pain and suffering upon animals and some end up with a reduced quality of life. If it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer then experimenting on animals produces serious moral problems. Animal experimenters are very aware of this ethical problem and acknowledge that experiments should be made as humane as possible. They also agree that it's wrong to use animals if alternative testing methods would produce equally valid results. More than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2002 is this ethically and religiously moral? The number of testing on animals has halved in the last 30 years as the laws and restrictions have become tighter, the British law requires that any new drug that has been produced must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent however UK regulations are
Do humans actually exist or are we part of the imagination of some greater being? Do we imagine each other?
Do humans actually exist or are we part of the imagination of some greater being? Do we imagine each other? If there is a great power capable of producing all things within its own 'mind,' and if this is indeed the nature of the universe, then this would be the only 'reality' in 'existence'. The world would be 'mind stuff,' this would of necessity include humans. However, it seems that this great power would have to impose laws on such a creation, 'natural laws' we might call them. Human minds would be individual minds within the great universal mind. Controlled by the laws, all humans would seemingly be guided into a general recognition of things in the way the great power required. Thus, if it was required that all humans should recognise, or believe in, a material existence, then so be it. Each human would recognise other humans, and would come to understand what was meant by 'life' and 'independence,' we would all 'exist' within this 'reality.' As we would all be products of this super power, then such a power could impose anything it chose on the world, including 'free will' for humans: or, if it wished to keep control then our lives would be 'determined.' Alternatively, if this super power was capable of producing 'actual' 'matter.' then it might create a 'material' world; everything, including humans, would be 'real' in the solid sense, real 'material' objects. It
A) Explain Augustines theodicy (25marks)
Explain Augustine's theodicy (25marks) St Augustine (ad 354-430), both Augustine's theodicy and his argument concerning evil were both originally based on the bible. Augustine himself had many beliefs, one of his main beliefs was that god had made the world and when making the world he had made it free from flaws. He believed very strongly that god is good, omnipotent and omniscience. As he believed for god to be these things he had a problem which was, if god is good and omnipotent and it was god that created the world why is there evil in the world? He solved this problem by saying that god is responsible for the evil in the world by defining evil as "privation". By this he means when we use worlds like "evil" and "bad" we are saying that something does not meet our expectations of what it should be like ( by nature). Augustine wrote that evil is not a substance but is in fact an absence of kind feelings. Augustine also said that god can't be blamed for creating evil himself that occurs in the world. As he said that in fact evil comes from angels and human beings who chose deliberately to deny and disobey what God had taught them, by turning away from him and what he had wished for mankind. Augustine believed that every human being was an offshoot of Adam and hence that every single person in the world is guilty of evil, this is as it was Adam who committed ultimate
What is the Mind?
What is the Mind? Determining whether the mind is part of separate from the physical world is a difficult task. There are several opinions and views working for both sides, but in the end, it seems that nothing can be proved. One can easily argue that the mind must be part of the physical world. Everything is easier to interperate if it is within a world that we understand. Scientists can conquer the physical world, and we would like to believe that everything revolves around this, as it allows us to find explanations for everything. Accepting that the mind is not part of the physical world would thrust us into the unknown, and we would find ourselves in a situation where we are clueless. People have never liked to be clueless about anything, and therefore they try to avoid finding themselves in that situation. Therefore, it is easier for them to accept the physical existence of the mind. Those who believe that there is only physical matter, is a materialist. According to materialists, all mental states are simply different brain states. This means that different neurons fire at different times, and therefore form different states- bringing on different feelings and emotions. A situation often supporting this theory would be that of pain. When we feel a pain, we immediately think that the pain is in the actual body part where the pain was inflicted. The thing that
Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative - Do you think that the categorical imperative, as presented by Kant, provides a sufficient guide to what is right or wrong?
Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative. Do you think that the categorical imperative, as presented by Kant, provides a sufficient guide to what is right or wrong? A categorical imperative is an absolute and universal moral obligation. One of the most famous is Kant's categorical imperative because it is through him that the phrase is widely known. According to Kant, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will, that it become a universal law." Another variation, which he used, was "Act only on a principle all rational agents could act on." Most religious moral systems comprise categorical imperatives. In Kant's philosophy, it denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end; the opposite of a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperatives take the conditional form of "If you want to achieve goal X, you must perform act A." Hypothetical imperatives are not universal or absolute, because they are necessarily conditioned on some goal or desire. For example, if you wish to remain healthy, then you should not eat spoiled food. Thus, a hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself, but as a means to an end; whether it is in force as a command depends on whether the end it helps attain is desired (or
There should be no moral absolutes in sexual behaviour
There should be no moral absolutes in sexual behaviour (45) There are many views on how to govern sexual behaviour and what is morally right or wrong. Absolutism is used when people believe an ethical theory has objective morals which are fixed and unchangeable. And moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral. There are some main principles which govern sexual behaviour the first of which is consent. The general view to this principle as most people would agree is for any sexual act to be moral it must be consensual. Although just because someone consents to something, it doesn't make it moral or right. For example someone may give consent but feel pressured into the act. In this case it could be said that the sexual behaviour isn't consensual. The next two principles would be moral and personal harm. The main view of moral harm caused by sexual behaviour is that it shouldn't cause harm
The key difference between someone using counselling skills and a qualified and trained counsellor is that 'the counsellor is bound by a code of ethics and practice and carries a set of professional responsibilities' (1) Generally anyone can be trained
Assignment Unit 1: Professional Framework Report Assignment Contents: Criteria 1 Differences between a Person Using Counselling Skills and a Qualified and Trained Counsellor Criteria 2 The BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy Criteria 3 Comparison of BACP Framework to other Codes and Organisational Requirements Criteria 4 Key Issues Criteria 5 Safety Criteria 6 Importance of Casework and Managerial Supervision Bibliography Criteria 1 Differences between a Person Using Counselling Skills and a Qualified and Trained Counsellor The key difference between someone using counselling skills and a qualified and trained counsellor is that 'the counsellor is bound by a code of ethics and practice and carries a set of professional responsibilities' (1) Generally anyone can be trained to use counselling skills however often they use them in the context of their own environment i.e. Nurses use skills at work but are bound by their own employer's set of standards and practices, therefore counselling skills can be subject to a conflict in interests e.g. a Nurse who has used counselling skills with a patient may be obliged to disclose information given if their employer's guidelines dictate so i.e. the patient discloses that they are HIV Positive. This conflict of interest, on the whole, does not exist with the trained and qualified
Does a declaration of war justify behaviour that would be unacceptable in peacetime?
Does a declaration of war justify behaviour that would be unacceptable in peacetime? Whether or not the declaration of Just War justifies behaviour that is morally or legally unacceptable in peacetime depends firstly on the sort of behaviour we are talking about. There are a number of behaviours that are legally permitted in peacetime that many people would and do reject as morally unacceptable. This includes abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. The legal acceptability of these issues depends on the government, and varies from state to state. In this country, during peacetime it is acceptable to kill in self defence - for instance, if one's house is being robbed and the burglar threatens the owner, the owner would not be penalized for shooting and killing the burglar. Pacifists object to all kinds of killing in both war and peacetime, whereas just war supporters try to draw parallels between civil justice and international justice in the attempt to justify certain behaviour. There are also behaviors such as propaganda, espionage and deliberate infringement of human rights that are more doubtful and are usually seen as unacceptable in peacetime. Certain examples of violent behaviour in peacetime in hindsight appear unacceptable, yet at the time those guilty were not prosecuted. There have been a number of incidents when armed Police officers have shot dead suspects who
`I know God exists, because I have an idea of perfection Discuss whether knowledge can be gained without using sense experience
`'I know God exists, because I have an idea of perfection' Discuss whether knowledge can be gained without using sense experience The argument for God's existence often prompts debate, and provides contrasting responses. The idea of perfection is often described as a state of 'completeness and flawlessness' Rene Descartes's 'trademark' argument for the existence of God is likened to the existence of a clothing brand designer. The 'Trademark' analogy claims that by searching one's interior deeply they will find the concept of God implanted within them. This is likened to finding the name of a designer on an item of clothing. The implications of this are that if this is the case, the argument for the existence of innate knowledge is relatively strong. The presence of knowledge of God's existence prior to experience would suggest that innate knowledge is achievable. The existence of innate knowledge is a view held by rationalists, whilst Empiricists are strongly against the existence of this particular kind of knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is reliant on a claim about the world, which can only be true. The view that, "we know only what our experience teaches us" is one held by many Philosophers in the empiricist school of thought. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is derived from and checked against sense experience. What we know or knowledge can be defined as a
