Metaethics
Metaethics is the most abstract area of moral philosophy. It doesn’t ask what acts, or what kind of acts are good or bad, right or wrong; rather, it asks about the nature of goodness and badness, what it is to be morally right or wrong. Very often this topic causes difficulties for students and they ask questions about who can do my homework. Good specialists with experience in this area will always be able to help.
Moral Realism and Antirealism
Perhaps the biggest controversy in metaethics is that which divides moral realists and antirealists.
Moral realists hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world. Things are good or bad independent of us, and then we come along and discover morality.
Antirealists hold that moral facts are not out there in the world until we put them there, that the facts about morality are determined by facts about us. On this view, morality is not something that we discover so much as something that we invent. There are coursework writing services by essayservice that can write essays on this topic. There is a lot of information on the Internet on this subject. The whole difficulty of this topic lies in the fact that it would be correct to present the information and that it would be understandable to the reader.
Cognitivism and Noncognitivism
Closely related to the disagreement between of moral realists and antirealists is the disagreement between cognitivism and noncognitivism.
Cognitivism and noncognitivism are theories of the meaning of moral statements.
According to cognitivism, moral statements describe the world. If I say that lying is wrong, then according to the cognitivist I have said something about the world, I have attributed a property wrongness to an act lying. Whether lying has that property is an objective matter, and so my statement is objectively either true or false.
Noncognitivists disagree with this analysis of moral statements. According to noncognitivists, when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world; rather, they are expressing their feelings or telling people what to do. Because noncognitivism holds that moral statements are not descriptive, it entails that moral statements are neither true nor false. To be true is to describe something as being the way that it is, and to be false is to describe something as being other than the way that it is; statements that aren’t descriptive can’t be either.
Noncognitivism is the view that moral truths are not the kind of truths that can be known. There are a number of types of noncognitivist theory, each of which provides a slightly different analysis of moral statements. What they have in common is that each of their analyses renders moral statements as neither true nor false. In order to be known, though, a statement must be true. If then, as the noncognitivist holds, no moral statements has a truth-value, then moral truths cannot be known. If you are looking for a good essay writer service, then you can pay attention to essayhub.com, which specializes in essay writing jobs. Whatever topic you choose, professional writers will help you write your paper.
Prescriptivism is the noncognitivist metaethical theory according to which moral statements are prescriptions, instructions how to behave. According to prescriptivism, when we say that an act is morally good, we are not attributing a property—goodness—to it, but rather are instructing people to do it.
Normative Ethics
Normative ethics is the attempt to provide a general theory that tells us how we ought to live. Unlike metaethics, normative ethics does not attempt to tell us what moral properties are, and unlike applied ethics, it does not attempt to tell us what specific things have those properties. Normative ethics just seeks to tell us how we can find out what things have what moral properties, to provide a framework for ethics.
For any act, there are three things that might be thought to be morally interesting: first, there is the agent, the person performing the act; second, there is the act itself; third, there are the consequences of the act. There are three types of normative ethical theory–virtue, deontological, and consequentialist–each emphasising one of these elements.
This first normative ethical theory, virtue theory, concentrates on the moral character of the agent. According to virtue theory, we ought to possess certain character traits–courage, generosity, compassion, etc.–and these ought to be manifest in our actions. We therefore ought to act in ways that exhibit the virtues, even if that means doing what might generally be seen as bad or bringing about undesirable consequences.
Normative theories of the second type, deontological theories, concentrate on the act being performed. According to deontological theories, certain types of act are intrinsically good or bad, i.e. good or bad in themselves. These acts ought or ought not to be performed, irrespective of the consequences.
The third approach to normative ethics is consequentialism. Consequentialist theories hold that we ought always to act in the way that brings about the best consequences. It doesn’t matter what those acts are; the end justifies the means. All that matters for ethics is making the world a better place.
To give an example, then, suppose that a man bravely intervenes to prevent a youth from being assaulted. The virtue theorist will be most interested in the bravery that the man exhibits; this suggests that he has a good character. The deontologist will be more interested in what the man did; he stood up for someone in need of protection, and that kind of behaviour is intrinsically good. The consequentialist will care only about the consequences of the man’s actions; what he did was good, according to the consequentialist, because he prevented the youth from suffering injury. The research paper writer revealed this topic in his article. You can ask him for help in writing your papers.
Strengths of Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics sets aside questions as to what we ought to do and instead concentrates on the question as to what type of people we ought to be. Moral goodness, it suggests, is primarily a matter of character, rather than of action.
After a period of neglect, virtue ethics has recovered popularity in recent decades. GEM Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre have been particularly influential in this process. There are several appealing features of virtue ethics that account for this return to prominence.
One important factor in the revival of virtue ethics has been a growing dissatisfaction with rule-based systems of ethics. Elizabeth Anscombe argued that the concept of moral duty rests on theological background assumptions. The idea of moral duty presupposes the existence of a moral law. Classical theism holds that God instituted such a law, and so that we do have obligations of this kind.
With the decline of classical theism, though, there is no longer widespread belief in the theological assumptions that ground the concept of moral obligation. We should therefore, Anscombe suggested, jettison the concept of obligation from morality. Talk of moral duty no longer makes any sense.
This proposal, if it were accepted, would undermine those ethical traditions that rest on concepts of obligation. Virtue ethics, though, would survive the revolution untouched. The first strength of virtue theory is therefore that it has no need of outdated concepts of moral obligation.
The main strength of virtue theory, though, is that unlike other ethical traditions it affords a central role to character. Other ethical theories neglect this aspect of morality. Kantian ethics, for example, holds that it is important to act out of duty rather than inclination, that whether or not you want to do the right thing is irrelevant; all that matter is whether or not you do it.
Character, though, does seem to be important. One who helps the poor out of compassion does seem to be morally superior to one who helps the poor out of a grudging respect for duty. Virtue theory can account for this; other theories, arguably, cannot.
The Cardinal Virtues
Virtue ethics holds that being good is more about who we are than it is about what we do, that character is primary in ethics. According to virtue theory there are certain character traits that it is good for us to possess, virtues. There is, however, some disagreement as to precisely what character traits should appear on the list of virtues.
From as far back as Plato, four virtues were identified as of foremost importance: courage, temperance, prudence, and justice. From these four, all other virtues were thought to spring. Because of their importance, these came to be known as the cardinal virtues.
Church tradition has adopted and extended this view. To the four natural virtues, three theological virtues have been added: faith, hope, and charity. Together, the seven are known as the heavenly virtues. Often this topic is used by students to write papers. If you are wondering who can write paper for you, then contact professional writers WritePaper. The topic is quite complex and requires a deep study of philosophy and religion.
There are also seven contrary virtues, each opposing one of the seven deadly sins. By exercising these virtues, one is supposed to avoid falling into those sins. The contrary virtues are humility (opposing pride), kindness (opposing envy), abstinence (opposing gluttony), chastity (opposing lust), patience (opposing anger), liberality (opposing greed), and diligence (opposing sloth).
Objections to Virtue Ethics
For all its advantages, there are some drawbacks to virtue theory. These are some of the problems that its advocates face:
The Relativity of Virtue
An initial difficulty for virtue theory is that of identifying the virtues. If there is an objective list of virtues, then it is difficult to overcome cultural prejudice in saying what goes on it. Indeed, it might plausibly be thought that virtues are culturally relative. At the risk of stereo-typing, compare the British taste for self-deprecation and humility with the American style of confidence and self-belief; which is the more virtuous approach?
Application
There is also the question of how to apply virtue theory to moral dilemmas. Virtue theory tells us to exhibit virtues, to act as the virtuous person would act, but if we don’t already know that it is difficult to work out. What, for instance, is the virtuous stance to take on the issue of stem-cell research, or abortion?
When Virtues are Vices
Virtue theory appears to commend some behaviour that we would generally view as immoral. For instance, soldiers fighting unjust wars for oppressive regimes seem to exhibit courage. That does not, however, make them morally good.
Supererogation
There is also a difficulty in accounting for supererogation, acting with exceptional goodness. Consider a rich Westerner who sells their possessions and relocates to a country in the developing world, giving the money that they save to the poor. We would normally think that someone who does this is to be applauded, even if we do not feel duty bound to follow their example ourselves.
On virtue theory, however, such acts as these are judged to be indicative of vice. For each virtue, remember, there are corresponding vices of excess and deficiency. The virtue of generosity, then, will fall between the vices of meanness and extravagence. To be as generous as the rich Westerner, surely, is to be extravagant. Virtue theory, then, would say that the rich Westerner’s actions betray a flaw in their character, a vice.
Deontology
The central claim of deontologists is that certain types of act are intrinsically right or wrong, i.e. right or wrong in themselves, irrespective of their consequences
This is in stark contrast to consequentialism, which holds that the moral status of an act is determined entirely by its consequences. Consequentialists hold that any act, even those acts that we would normally classify as morally wrong, is morally good if it has good consequences. In the view of the consequentialist, the end justified the means; it is morally permissible to use distasteful means (e.g. lying, stealing, physical violence, etc.) in order to achieve good ends (e.g. happiness, alleviation of suffering, etc.).
The deontologist is opposed to this approach; certain acts, the deontologist holds, should never be performed, even if performing them would lead to good consequences. This is the central thesis of deontology. There are three main deontological theories: Kantian ethics, divine command theory, and agapism.
Kantian Ethics
The most famous deontologist is Immanuel Kant. Kantian ethics is firmly based in reason; we can derive moral laws from rational precepts, according to Kant, and anyone who behaves immorally also behaves irrationally. He stated the moral law thus derived in the form of the Categorical Imperative, which in many ways resembles the biblical injunction to “do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”
Divine Command Theory
A second deontological theory is divine command theory. Divine command theory holds that God’s commands are the source of ethics, that God is a moral authority and we ought always to obey his commands, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.
Agapism
A further deontological ethical theory, also influenced by the Christian tradition, is agapism. Agapism, which derives its name from the Greek word “agape” meaning “love”, takes very seriously the great commandment of Mark 12:30-31: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart… you shall love your neighbour as yourself.” All of ethics, according to agapism, is summarised in this commandment. Agapism is a deontological system of ethics consisting of one simple command: in every situation, do the loving thing, whatever that may be.
Deontology and its components
One feature of Kantian ethics is its emphasis on reason. According to Kant, morality can be derived from rationality. Immorality is irrational. As rationality is universal, possessed by all human beings, morality is universal too; we are all subject to the moral law.
Another aspect of Kant’s ethics is its lack of interest in motives. According to Kany, we ought to act from duty. Whether we want to do the right thing or not, we ought to do it; out motives are irrelevant to ethics. This means that someone who gives money to charity reluctantly, because they believe that they ought to, acts just as well as one who gives money to charity joyfully, because they have compassion for those less well off than themselves. In fact, the person that gives out of duty acts better than the person who acts out of inclination if the person who acts out of inclination would not have so acted absent that inclination.
Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical.
Hypothetical imperatives tell you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal: “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job”; “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”.
Hypothetical imperatives only apply to people who want to achieve the goal to which they refer. If I don’t care about having enough money for a new phone, then “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason to get a job. If I don’t mind going to prison, then “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason not to steal cars.
Morality, according to Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we want to achieve a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Moral behaviour isn’t about staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives.
Categorical imperatives, unlike hypothetical imperatives, tell us what to do irrespective of our desires. Morality doesn’t say “If you want to stay out of prison, then don’t steal cars”; it says “Don’t steal cars!” We ought not to steal cars whether we want to stay out of prison or not.
Kant’s system of ethics attempts to derive the moral law from reason. Immorality, according to Kant, involves inconsistency, and is therefore irrational.
This feature of Kantian ethics has two important implications.
The first implication of Kant’s use of reason to ground morality is that it provides a response to the egoist. Egoism holds that we ought only to act in our own self-interest. Most philosophers reject egoism, but it is notoriously difficult to give an adequate justification for doing so. Kant’s theory provides such a justification: egoism is irrational, and so can be criticised on that ground.
The second implication of Kant’s use of reason to ground morality is that it explains the scope of morality. Rationality, for Kant, is definitive of human nature; it is universal among human beings. All human beings, then, because that have the capacity to be rational, ought to be moral. Other animals, lacking this rational capacity, are not subject to the moral law, and therefore cannot be judged by it.
Divine command theory holds that morality is all about doing God’s will. God, divine command theorists hold, has issued certain commands to his creatures. We can find these commands in the Bible, or by asking religious authorities, or perhaps even just by consulting our moral intuition. We ought to obey these commands; that’s all there is to ethics.
There are several reasons for theists to be divine command theorists. If God is the creator literally all things, then he created morality. If God rules over all Creation, then we ought to do what he tells us to do. The consistent message of the Bible is that we should obey God’s commands.
The most famous argument against divine command theory is Euthyphro dilemma, which gets its name from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which inspired it. The Euthyphro dilemma poses the question: Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? However the divine command theorist answers this question, unacceptable consequences seem to arise.
The most common argument against divine command theory is the Euthyphro dilemma. The argument gets its name from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for it. The Euthyphro dilemma is introduced with the question Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? Each of the two possibilities identified in this question are widely agreed to present intractable problems for divine command theory.
Suppose that the divine command theorist takes the first horn of the dilemma, asserting that God commands the good because it is good. If God commands the good because it is good, then he bases his decision what to command on what is already morally good. Moral goodness, then, must exist before God issues any commands, otherwise he wouldn’t command anything. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, though, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands; God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about morality. Morality itself is not based in divine commands.
Suppose, then, that the divine commands theorist takes the second horn of the dilemma, asserting that the good is good because it is commanded by God. On this view, nothing is good until God commands it. This, though, raises a problem too: if nothing is good until God commands it, then what God commands is completely morally arbitrary; God has no moral reason for commanding as he does; morally speaking, he could just as well have commanded anything else. This problem is exacerbated when we consider that God, being omnipotent, could have commanded anything at all. He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s. If divine command theory is true, then had he done so then these things would be morally good. That doesn’t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad. Divine command theory, then, must be false.
Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the most practical area of philosophy. It seeks to apply normative ethical theories to specific issues, telling what it is right and wrong for us to do.
The most interesting debates in applied ethics concern contentious issues such as abortion, animal rights, and punishment.
Animal Rights
Peter Carruthers argues that animals do not have significant moral value. He makes this claim because he believes that animals lack consciousness.
Peter Singer approaches the question of animal rights from a utilitarian perspective. Just as the happiness of men is no more important than the happiness of women, and the happiness of caucasians is no more important than the happiness of asians, so, he suggests, the happiness of humans is no more important than the happiness of non-humans. We have recognised that sexism and racism are evils that must be overcome; we should do the same for speciesism.