Brief Summary
This video is a lesson on meta-ethics, a branch of ethics that explores the meaning of moral language. The video covers three main arguments: ethical naturalism, intuitionism, and emotivism. Each argument is explained in detail, with examples and criticisms. The video encourages viewers to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and to decide which side they align with.
- Ethical naturalism argues that moral statements are factual and can be observed in the natural world.
- Intuitionism claims that moral truths are self-evident and cannot be defined.
- Emotivism suggests that moral statements express emotions or attitudes rather than objective truths.
Meta-Ethics: Absolutism vs Relativism
The video begins by introducing the concept of meta-ethics and its focus on the language of ethics. It explains that meta-ethics is concerned with whether moral statements refer to fixed truths (ethical absolutism) or are relative to emotions and beliefs (relativism). The video highlights that absolutism and relativism disagree on the meaning of moral statements, not on what is morally right or wrong.
Ethical Naturalism
Ethical naturalism is presented as an ethical theory that holds that everything arises from natural properties and causes. It argues that morals are fixed absolutes that can be observed as part of the universe. The video explains that ethical naturalism views moral statements as factual and objective, not subjective opinions. It uses examples like "Hitler was a bad man" to illustrate how ethical naturalism equates moral statements with factual statements. The video also discusses the criticisms of ethical naturalism, particularly David Hume's "is-ought" distinction, which argues that you cannot infer moral conclusions from factual observations. Philippa Foot's defence of ethical naturalism is also explored, highlighting her argument that virtues can be observed through a person's actions and therefore become factual.
Intuitionism
Intuitionism, primarily associated with G.E. Moore, is presented as an alternative to ethical naturalism. It argues that moral truths are indefinable but self-evident through intuition. The video explains that intuitionists believe we simply know what is good or bad, and that these truths cannot be defined or quantified. The video uses the example of "yellow" to illustrate how intuitionists view moral concepts as basic and indefinable. It also discusses the naturalistic fallacy, which intuitionists argue is committed by ethical naturalism. The video then introduces H.A. Pritchard and W.D. Ross, who built upon Moore's work. Pritchard distinguishes between general thinking (reasoning) and moral thinking (intuition), while Ross introduces the concept of prima facie duties, which are actions that are always right, such as fidelity, reparation, and justice.
Emotivism
Emotivism is presented as a theory that rejects the view that morals tell us anything about the external world. It argues that moral statements express emotions or attitudes rather than objective truths. The video explains that emotivism views moral statements as expressions of approval or disapproval, using the analogy of "boo" and "hurrah" to illustrate this concept. It also discusses C.L. Stevenson's view that moral statements aim to persuade or influence others. The video then introduces A.J. Ayer, who argues that disagreements about morality are based on preferences rather than objective truths. The video concludes by discussing criticisms of emotivism, including James Rachels' argument that moral judgments appeal to reasoning and Alistair McIntyre's critique that emotivism fails to explain how we distinguish moral feelings from other attitudes.
