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
Assess whether the problem of moral evil casts doubt on the existence of God
Assess whether the problem of moral evil casts doubt on the existence of God St. Augustine once defined evil as that "which we fear, or the act of fearing itself". He and Aquinas (1225-74) both deny the existence of evil as a thing in itself, but rather as an absence of good. This is linked to Aristotle (390-323 BC) and Plato's (428-348 BC) definition of good as the complete fulfilment of a being's natural telos. "[Evil is] nothing but the corruption of natural measure, form and order."-Augustine. More specifically however there are two sorts of evil; natural and moral. Natural evil is that over which humans have no control e.g. natural disasters. Moral evil is that which is caused by humans e.g. the holocaust. The problem of evil affects all theistic religions, whose followers must each respond to John Hick's (1922-) question: "Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and power?" The logical problem of evil proposes that the idea of world full of suffering created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is a logically inconsistent one. David Hume (1711-76) stated that one of these three propositions must be false. It is impossible to deny that there is evil and suffering in the world, so he claimed that God must be limited either in His power or in His love. "supposing [God] to be finitely perfect...a
Discuss whether the ontological argument would convince an atheist
Discuss whether the ontological argument would convince an atheist The ontological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument, working from first principles and definitions in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. It is also a deductive argument using logic rather than depending on the evidence of sense experience. The argument has come under much criticism since its creation from believers and atheists alike on the premises that it is not logical, that existence is not a predicate, and that it is possible to imagine a godless world amongst others. For these reasons it would seem that the ontological argument is unlikely to convince an atheist to believe in God. One of the most famous criticisms of the ontological argument which indicates that to a large extent it would not convince an atheist originates from Gaunilo, a French Christian monk. Gaunilo stated that the ontological argument was not logical and therefore needed to be refuted. Gaunilo claimed he could make obvious the flaws in the ontological argument if he went through the argument again, replacing the idea of God with the image of an island. In his writings 'On Behalf of the Fool', he explained that we could imagine the most excellent lost island; we understand the implications of the phrase 'the most excellent island' and therefore this notion exists as a concept in our understanding.
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
What are the internal and external features to support the theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee?
Maria Louise Hession 61M 2nd Draft What are the internal and external features to support the theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee? We cannot be certain whom the author of the Fourth Gospel was, however we can try to prove the authorship by looking at the internal and external evidence. Firstly in John (21:20-24) Peter asks Jesus about the beloved disciple. " Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on his breast at the supper. This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." "The disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the one who witnessed to things and who wrote things (21:24) that happened in the Fourth Gospel. In other words, he is not only the author but could also be seen as the authority standing behind the gospel. The disciple whom Jesus loved is said to be the one who leaned back on Jesus' breast to talk to Jesus during the meal. Since he asks Jesus about this disciple, Peter is eliminated as a candidate for "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It is not clear whom the beloved disciple was, however Irenaeus links John the apostle with the figure of the beloved disciple, and this has long been held as the most traditional view. Irenaeus was not alone in this view. Bishop Polycarp also
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
