PHILO 210 Second Paper Monday, May 12, 2014
Julien Rahal ID 201203217
Meta-ethics is the branch of ethical philosophy which aims at outlining the metaphysical, epistemological and semantic assumptions concerning moral thoughts, talk, and practices. For this purpose, it inquires a broad set of questions such as: Are there moral facts? Are moral principles relative? Is morality a matter of taste? Different combinations of answers to these questions found the core commitments of different meta-ethical theories. Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical theory which supports normative anti-realism, by believing that norms don’t exist, since its core commitments consists of metaphysical naturalism and the non-physicality of norms. Non cognitivism also rejects the objective purport.
In this paper I will reason about the validity of non-cognitivism over cognitivism, the diametrically opposite theory. I will first describe both theories and present the arguments for and against each one. Next, I will go over the points on which cognitivism and non-cognitivism agree and disagree. Finally, I will make the point about where I stand on the meta-ethical argument of cognitivism and non-cognitivism and why I agree with that theory.
A) Cognitivism
For cognitivists, moral judgments express facts and are either true or false. These judgments are statements of beliefs. Moreover, a cognitivist theory is one which holds moral judgments apt for evaluation in terms of truth and falsity. This evaluation is the result of cognitively retrieving the facts which makes judgments true or false. By cognitively assessing, I mean relying on to the mental processes of perception, judgment, and reasoning, in contrast with emotional and choices made by will....
... middle of paper ...
...rue or false. Also, some words have factual meanings along with normative components that can be used either way.
Concerning beliefs, they can’t be right or wrong, because different people have different beliefs. Some cultures may find it alright to make human sacrifices for the gods above; yet other religions don’t agree with human sacrifice and regards it as murder. So beliefs can be true or false. Nevertheless it cannot tell whether an action is right or wrong.
To wrap up, I provided vulnerable sides of both cognitivism and non-cognitivism after explaining each of the two theories and inspecting their convergences and divergences. In conclusion, I argue that non-cognitivism is superior to cognitivism and that it is also more believable. The way of life is all in what we believe, feel, or want. So how can there possibly be a right or wrong answer to any question?
The ‘computer manual’ model is what Annas uses to describe our moral decision making. Annas says in regards to this:
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
John Greco in, The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge, argues that, “...knowledge is a true belief grounded in intellectual ability” (Greco 1). Now, this is categorically a 'virtue reliabilist' or more specifically, an 'agent reliabilist' claim. The purpose of this paper to analyze Greco's virtue reliablism. Moreover, to articulate one strong objection to Greco's view and to argue that Greco's defense of virtue reliablism fails. Specifically, the argument will be made that the newly instantiated 'Sea Race Objection' example effectively refutes Greco's version of virtue reliablism.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Contrarily, Positivisms main principle is determinacy; that all behaviour is a result of circumstances. Therefore, the degree of socialisation an individual has in societal values, leads them to be categorised into conformist or criminal on the continuum. However, this is a problem as it denies the freedom individuals have in making choices. The same tension between instinct and the social self exists in Conse...
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
In order to make sense of the ambiguous and complicated world we live in we need a way in which to perceive phenomena. For any given event there could be numerous causes, and instinctively we choose the cause of most significance. These causes are generally ones that represents a humanlike agent. As these agents are not always easy to detect - we often assume there is a humanlike agent behind phenomena regardless of whether we can identify their presence. He notes that Wegner and Mar and Marcae propose we are inclined to see agency even in things such a geometric figures or 'abstract non living
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
Morals. Right and wrong. This is what we as everyday human beings struggle with every day. And we aren’t the only ones. Modern day philosophers study this day in and day out, especially those who study metaethics. Metaethics is the study of the foundation of ethics, what it means to be moral. Within metaethics there are three main moral beliefs that are constantly being debated between; moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I believe that moral skepticism is the most reasonable standpoint on morality because while morals do exist, they are completely subjective. A person 's sense of morality depends on how they were raised, what they were taught to believe, who they surround themselves with and their personal experiences. After
To respond to this shortcoming of consciousness, some might attempt to find an absolute absolved from one-sidedness, from sheer relativity to the knowing subject. Others will not respond this way, however, instead spinning off into apathy, subjectivism, or nihilism (59). Those who do attempt to find an objective truth most often turn to science. Some have suggested that the intellect is an ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
...ocesses which are distinct from observable behavioral responses. Acts such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, and willing are defined by behavioral actions and by dispositions to perform behavioral actions. However, Ryle criticises Behaviorist theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic, just as he criticizes Cartesian theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic. While Cartesian theory asserts that hidden mental processes cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual, Behaviorism asserts that stimulus-response mechanisms cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual. Ryle argues that both the Cartesian theory and the Behaviorist theory are too simplistic and mechanistic to enable us to fully understand the Concept of Mind.
Philosopher David Hume divided the term “ethics” into three distinctive areas; meta-ethics, which focuses on the language used when talking about ethical issues. The general approach to this area of ethics is, it explores the nature of moral judgement, and it looks at the meaning of ethical principles. Normative ethics tries to find practical moral code that we can live by. It is concerned with the content of moral judgements and the criteria for what is right and wrong. Finally applied-ethics is the application of ethical theories and using them in real life issues such as medical research or human rights (Hume D, 2011).