Related questions:
v With reference to some specific philosophers, explain in details the following meta-ethical concepts: (a) Naturalism (b) Anti-naturalism (c) Emotivism (d) Prescriptivism
v What is meta-ethics? Identify and discuss any two meta-ethical theories.
 |
(...YOUR INTRODUCTION)
META-ETHICS AND ITS THEORIES
Ethics as a discipline can be classified into two broad aspects namely “meta-ethics” and “normative ethics”. Meta-ethics is the aspect of ethics which deals with the analysis of ethical terms, such as “good”, “evil”, “obligation”, “principle”, “moral” e.t.c. The central problem in meta-ethics is its perennial and fundamental question of “...how do we define a good or bad action”? In response to this fundamental question, some meta-ethical theories have sprung up. These are; Naturalism, Anti-naturalism, Emotivism and Prescriptivism.
NATURALISM
Basically, Naturalism is a meta-ethical theory that explains moral goodness in terms of natural elements or properties, such as pleasure, interest, desire (appetite).
· Moral goodness in terms of pleasure
Popularly known as “ethical hedonism”, it is a meta-ethical theory that defines moral goodness in terms of pleasure. Thus, it holds that an action is good if it produces pleasure and bad if it produces pain. “Epicurus” a Hellenistic philosopher is a proponent of this school. However, this theory is false as there are some morally bad actions that gives pleasure e.g. plagiarism. Consequently, moral goodness cannot be defined in terms of pleasure.
· Moral goodness in terms of interest
The meta-ethical theory that defines moral goodness in terms of interest holds that a thing is good or valuable, if it is the object of one’s positive interest. “Ralph Barton Perry” an American contemporary philosopher is a proponent of this school. However, this theory is false as it is possible for someone to have interest in something that is morally bad E.g. gambling. Thus, moral goodness is not synonymous with positive interest.
· Moral goodness in terms of appetitive desire
This meta-ethical theory holds that moral virtue or vice is not inherent in things, as a good thing simply means that it is the craving of our appetite or desire, and not that it contains the quality of goodness. “Thomas Hobbes” an English philosopher is a proponent of this school. Here, moral virtue or vice is subjective and relative depending on one’s desire. However, this theory is false, as moral goodness is not a question of appetite.
Accordingly, we cannot define moral goodness in terms of pleasure, interest and appetite. Thus, Naturalism cannot adequately explain moral goodness.
ANTI-NATURALISM
Anti-Naturalism is a meta-ethical theory that postulates “intuition” as the basis by which we recognize moral goodness or viciousness. “George Edward Moore” a British philosopher, has been described as an intuitionist, as he believes that moral goodness cannot be defined in natural terms at all. However, he holds that goodness is a quality that can be recognized in things even though it cannot be defined. And it is through “intuition” that we can recognize moral goodness in things. Thus, anti-naturalism is a meta-ethical theory of “intuitionism”. “Sir William David Ross” a British classical scholar and moral philosopher is another anti-naturalist who believes that all fundamental moral principles are self-evident and we know them by intuition.
EMOTIVISM
This is a meta-ethical theory which holds that ethical statements are used to express one’s feelings about certain things, as well as arouse similar feelings in others. Thus, the statement that “...something is good” actually says nothing about an object. All it does is that, it expresses one’s approval of something and it evokes similar approval from the person to whom one is speaking to. The two major exponents of this theory are “Alfred Jules Ayer” an English philosopher and “Charles Leslie Stevenson” an American moral philosopher.
However, the emotive theory reduces ethics to “subjectivism” as it depends on individual feelings. Moral statements are meant to state objective facts about the moral nature of things. For example, if I say stealing is bad or immoral, I should not just be expressing personal feelings but also saying that there is something objectively bad in stealing.
PRESCRIPTIVISM
This is a meta-ethical theory by “Richard Mervyn Hare” an English moral philosopher and professor of moral philosophy at oxford (1919-2002), that says ethical terms like good and bad are used to prescribe a cause of action. Thus, ethical terms are prescriptive in nature implying that they commend and recommend moral actions. According to prescriptivism, moral statements entail imperatives, though they differ from simple imperatives. Moral statements are universal e.g. Murder is evil (applies to all) but imperatives are not as they apply to a person or group of people e.g. Do not steal. However, it can be said that a moral statement is a “universal imperative”. “R.M.Hare” says moral terms are evaluative, prescriptive and descriptive such that anything described automatically qualifies any other thing that has the same attributes, thus affirming the universality of moral terms. Lastly, “R.M.Hare” says, moral statements directly influence our conduct in that we cannot fully accept them without conforming our conduct to them. Thus, moral judgements entail self-commitment.
(YOUR PERSONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)
