"Describe and evaluate Emotivism, showing knowledge of its key thinkers and critics?"
"Describe and evaluate Emotivism, showing knowledge of its key thinkers and critics?" Emotivism is where moral judgements are used to express our feelings. It is an ethical theory which philosophers such as Hume, Stevenson and Ayer have varying views on. In order to be able to understand Emotivism the theories of these individual philosophers must be analysed. This accompanied with the main concepts of Emotivism will enable a good understanding of the theory. Emotivism stems back to the Vienna Circle, who were a group of philosophers and scientists who met periodically for discussions in Vienna, Austria, during the 1920s and 1930s. They proposed controversial conception of scientific philosophy. They began to question how meaningful statements were. As such they believed that no statement is meaningful unless it can be tested by sense experience. This then linked to the creation of logical positivism, which is the theory of which these emotivists adopted. Logical positivism primarily assesses the meaningfulness of a statement. It is considered non cognitive, which means that a factual truth claim is not expressed. It is a view that is hostile to Meta - physics and the majority of theology of which we are familiar with. Logical positivism resolves around the idea of a type of verification to verify how much meaning a statement has. The theory highlights the facts
"Evil dominates if good people do nothing".
Friday 27th September 2002 "Evil dominates if good people do nothing" Over the years many philosophers have attempted to understand what is the cause of evil and why people choose to be evil. I am going to look into the part of this argument that talks about, "Evil dominates if good people do nothing." As I tried to summarise my thoughts I decided firstly to find out what is evil... Evil? Evil is an action, which generally results in pain, suffering or destruction. There are three main types of evil, which happens all around us every day. . Moral Evil - Caused by Humans on purpose to hurt someone else like stealing, bullying, rape, murder, cheating, swearing, etc... 2. Non-moral Evil - Caused by humans not on purpose, generally by accident like mistakes, accidental, not intentional, etc... 3. Natural Evil - Caused naturally by the earth and nature like earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanoes, etc... Evil often results from the horrible conditions of which people are subjected too like in the ways given above. A lot of evil is also caused by human being's selfish desires, "I want..." or "I need..." and these days people forget about their friends, neighbours and families. All people tend to want is happiness in their lives and they use evil to get it. To answer the question "Evil dominates if good people do nothing" I need to investigate good and look at the
Virtue ethics is of little practical use to someone faced with a moralproblem. Discuss.
b) Virtue ethics is of little practical use to someone faced with a moral problem. Discuss. A woman has 4 children. Her house is on fire. She has already saved 3 of the children but there is one child left in the house. Should she go into the burning house and risk losing her life and leaving the other 3 children behind without a mother? Which would be the more moral thing to do? Virtue Ethics would tell the woman to do what a good person would do. Robert Louden writes that 'We ought, of course, to do what the virtuous person would do, but it is not always easy to fathom what the hypothtical moral exemplar would do were hge in our shoes...' Be brave - in which case she should go into the burning house and risk her life to save the fourth child. Be pragmatic - in which case she should stay with the other 3 children; this would, in the long term mean that she would be saving 3 lives instead of 1. Virtues sometimes conflict therefore they would be of little practical use to this woman. In this particular case there would also be no time to start considering which would be the more moral thing to do. To go through all the virtues would take time, something which the mother wouldn't have. Some would say that the woman could be being selfish if she didn't go into the house because that way she could be using it as an excuse to save her own life. It is too
Discuss whether moral judgments are subjective or objective
Discuss whether moral judgments are subjective or objective The moral philosophical branch; metaethics concentrates on the discussion of the definitive meaning, of a moral term. Is it possible for a moral judgment to be indisputably classified as either, 'good' or 'bad'? Metaethics also focuses on whether these moral judgments can be justified, and the various approaches that have been formulated to act as this solid and undoubted rationalization. The acknowledged translation of Metaethics is applied ethics - philosophers who study this area have attempted to devise theories that will adequately justify the condemnation of certain acts such as; murder, theft and rape, as wrong and, the subjection of the deviant to punishments believed necessary by the conforming norm. Moral judgments are, judgments, which have a truth-value. The preposition can be interpreted as either 'good' or 'bad', and thus - due to the various forms of morality adopted by humans worldwide - a difference of opinion will arise. If a sociologist was to suggest that 'the eating of children under the age of 4 months is justified', some beings would believe that this was true, that to be a carnivore is correct and justified. However others may be believe that such an act is morally wrong and thus condemn it. Moreover it can be seen that it's these types of statements
Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion? (33)
Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion? (33) Meta-ethicists study the meaning of moral judgements and analyse the reasoning behind ethical systems. They limit themselves to studying the nature of morality and meaning of moral judgements. Meta-ethics concentrate more on the reasoning rather than content of ethical statements. There are four main theories that are used when studying ethical language. Intuitionists claim that morality is self-evident. An intuitions is thought of as someone who holds a particular view about the way in which we come to find out which of our actions are right and wrong. W.D. Ross was one of the main scholars who pioneered this theory. He had been greatly influenced by the earlier work of Moore and Prichard. He argued that what was 'right' and 'obligatory' were just as indefinable as 'good'. Toss defined 'right' as: "...suitable, in a unique and indefinable way which we may express by the phrase 'morally suitable' to the situation in which an individual finds himself" (Foundation of Ethics) He drew a clear distinction between what is right to do and what is good to do. He claimed that actions may be said to be right or wrong but goodness is assessed in terms of motives and intentions. Moral intuitionists believe that moral principles are capable of being true and known through a
With reference to abortion, examine and comment on the view that the sanctity of life should be regarded as a moral absolute
With reference to abortion, examine and comment on the view that the sanctity of life should be regarded as a moral absolute .In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal. .In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal. .There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted each year, 20 million of them obtained illegally. .There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day. Abortion is the premature expulsion of the foetus from the womb. This is when a mother chooses to terminate a pregnancy and kill the developing baby when it is in her womb. This creates moral dilemmas which have been the centre of acute controversy for many years. There are basically two sides to the argument; pro-choice, and pro-life. The first promotes the freedom of choice by the women; the latter promotes the un-mitigating view to protecting any unborn innocent life. These views can be dispute, what cannot be disputed is the confliction abortion creates with the moral view to the Sanctity of Life. According to the Anglican Church, abortion is, in itself, wrong, but there are a very few circumstances in which it can be considered "morally preferable to any available alternatives" so, sometimes abortion could be considered the best thing to do. Whether it is in the interests of the mother, or the interests of the unborn child. According to
Clarify and explain the key concepts of situational ethics
Clarify and explain the key concepts of situational ethics. The situational ethics theory was brought about by Joseph Fletcher. It refers to a particular view of ethics that states: the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed. The founding idea is that the only thing of built-in value is love. From there, Fletcher advocated a number of controversial courses of action. There are 3 kinds of ethical theories, and these are essentially three different ways of making moral decisions. There are the legalistic ethics, the antinomian ethics and the situational ethics. The legalistic ethics have a set of moral rules and regulations. Both Christianity and Judaism also have legalistic ethical traditions. Different religions have different approaches to how to dealing with decisions, and where to look for guidance. For example, Judaism has a law-based approach to life, and Christianity looks for guidance either in the commandments of the bible or natural law. But Fletcher believes that these traditions fail when life's problems require additional laws. The legalist must either include all of the complex alternatives in the law or create a whole new law altogether. Fletcher rejects legalistic ethics. The second theory is Antinomian ethics. Antinomian ethics is basically seen as the opposite of legalistic ethics. 'Antinomian' basically
Explain how Meta-Ethics differs from Normative Ethics.
. Explain how Meta-Ethics differs from Normative Ethics Meta Ethics can also be called philosophical ethics and is a twentieth century concept. This section of ethics explores the meaning of moral language. The most common passage explored in meta-ethics is the meaning of the words; 'good, bad, right or wrong'. When deciding what a meta-ethical question is, its best to look for the use of those words. An example of a meta-ethical question would be, 'What do we mean when we say that euthanasia is wrong?' There are two main branches of meta-ethics. One being ethical non-naturalism (also known as intuitionism) and non-cognitivism (which is also know as emotivism). Normative Ethics was dominant up until the end of the nineteenth century, now it is commonly replaced by meta-ethics. The theory begins by establishing what things are good and what things are bad. It also decides how people ought to act and behave, as well as how a person makes moral choices. These choices are based on a person's culture or religion and form a traditional way of doing ethics. An example of a normative ethical question would be, 'Is Capital Punishment right?' There are two further branches of normative ethics; Deontological and Teleological. Deontological theories are concerned with the acts themselves, which are intrinsically right or wrong. Teleological theories are concerned with the consequences
Religion and Medical Ethics
Religion and medical issues coursework (a)(i) Describe the treatments available to help infertile couples to have children. There are various treatments available to help infertile couples have children. A first treatment that is available is surrogacy. Surrogacy is where a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a different person. There are two types of surrogacy, host surrogacy and gestational surrogacy. The first, host surrogacy, is where the embryo of the couple who want the child is implanted into the surrogate mother. This treatment can be used when the mother still has ovaries that are producing eggs, but she cannot for some reason have the child herself. The second treatment, gestational surrogacy, is where the surrogate mother is the biological mother. The sperm of the father is then injected into the woman's vagina, via a syringe and a catheter. This method can be used if the mother is infertile, or if the father has sperm that has limited mobility, and so needs assistance to get to the egg. Surrogate mothers are not paid for their role as a 'mother'; however their expenses are paid (up to £10,000), meaning that they do not end up with extra bills to pay, such as paying for maternity clothing. AID and AIH are treatments in which the sperm of the male donor or husband is artificially inseminated into the woman who wants to conceive a child. These
TOK Essay: Reason and Emotion
Theory of Knowledge External Assessment Question # 2: Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions? Name: Shay Sidelnik Word Count: 1521 Date: November 8th, 2007 Although reason and emotions can be perceived as completely opposite human traits, they are in fact very closely related. These two traits influence each other, and in one way or another help shape each other. Reason is often related to the brain while emotions are related more to the heart. Reason comes from the logical part of the human, reasonable things are things that makes sense in an individual's mind, things that are logical. Emotions on the other hand, tend to be much less logical; they are inner feelings which in many cases are very unreasonable, and inexplicable. Yet, it is common that the emotions of a person influence that person's reason. Both reason and emotion are necessary in justifying moral decisions. Moral decisions are simple decisions where each individual makes the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Since emotions are very often unreasonable the ideal would be that people justify their moral decisions by reason and reason alone. The reality is however that emotions play such a key role in human lives that they cannot be ignored, and for that reason both reason and emotion are, maybe not equally but still are nece00ssary in justifying a moral