Intro. to Meta-Ethics
BackAn extremely brief introduction to the different schools of thought in meta-ethics.
Channel: Education
Uploaded: June 20, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Author: LennyBound
Length: 00:07:01
Rating: 5.00
Views: 808
Tags: Cognitivism Noncognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Prescriptivism Subjectivism Relativism Objectivism Intersubjectivism
Video Comments:
trick0171 (October 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm)
I'm an Objectivist who believes there are objective moral values, but the only way we can come close to understanding what is moral is to base them on specific axioms (an axiom regarding sufferings inherent badness for instance). Once we have the right axioms, we can apply empirical evidence to come to probable objective morals. As we acquire better evidence we can acquire closer knowledge of the moral.
theoriginalanomaly (October 25, 2008 at 8:44 pm)
Objective can be defined in different ways. It seems to me when describing ethics that the definition of objective is something that can be agreed upon. If you think abortion is wrong, and I want an abortion then there is a conflict between us. If I list my reasons and they don't agree with me, and they list their reasons and I do not agree with them... then it is not objective. Unless one individual does not take into consideration the other viewpoint.
LennyBound (October 25, 2008 at 9:05 pm)
Im going to have to disagree with your definition of objective. It seems to me that if abortion is, in fact, really objectively wrong, then someone who obtains an abortion (even if they really want to) is behaving immorally. Their personal belief that obtaining an abortion is not immoral is simply false.
LennyBound (October 25, 2008 at 9:05 pm)
If objective moral realism is correct, then whether or not we agree something is immoral or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually is. On that view, objective moral facts exist, and there is a fact of the matter; if one of us holds moral beliefs that are contrary to that objective moral fact, then they are simply mistaken.
theoriginalanomaly (October 25, 2008 at 9:35 pm)
I was saying that abortion is wrong only if everyone agrees it is wrong. In which case everyone would think that it was immoral, so yes if one still got a abortion even though they thought it was immoral, it would still be immoral to them. Objective I defined as something everyone can agree on. Much like reality. Something physical that everyone can see.
FroSanchez (October 17, 2008 at 5:08 am)
simply because my only way of seeing certain astronomical phenomena is through a telescope doesn't mean that these phenomena are merely telescopic, or that the phenomena i see with a telescope aren't objectively real.
likewise, just because the only way i have of discerning moral phenomena are through my own perceptions (beliefs, conscience, etc.) does not mean these phenomena aren't objectively real.
likewise, just because the only way i have of discerning moral phenomena are through my own perceptions (beliefs, conscience, etc.) does not mean these phenomena aren't objectively real.
FroSanchez (October 17, 2008 at 5:09 am)
slavery is wrong. this is a true statement.
you may argue, 'that's only because you've grown up in a culture that has abjured slavery, and had you grown up in the 1790s america, you probably wouldn't agree'.
i'd reply that had i grown up in a culture without telescopes, there'd be a gazillion objective truths i also wouldn't have access to - does this negate the reality of stars?
with a firm nudge, moral anti-realism slips quickly into metaphysical anti-realism.
you may argue, 'that's only because you've grown up in a culture that has abjured slavery, and had you grown up in the 1790s america, you probably wouldn't agree'.
i'd reply that had i grown up in a culture without telescopes, there'd be a gazillion objective truths i also wouldn't have access to - does this negate the reality of stars?
with a firm nudge, moral anti-realism slips quickly into metaphysical anti-realism.
LennyBound (October 17, 2008 at 11:17 am)
Interesting points.
My only response would be what is called "The Argument from Queerness." It states that if moral values are in fact objective then they are of a very strange sort of ontology; utterly different from anything else we've encountered in the world.
Put another way, I can understand what it would be like for physical objects to exist in space-time, but it's extremely difficult for me to imagine what it would be like for objective moral values to exist in the fabric of space-time.
My only response would be what is called "The Argument from Queerness." It states that if moral values are in fact objective then they are of a very strange sort of ontology; utterly different from anything else we've encountered in the world.
Put another way, I can understand what it would be like for physical objects to exist in space-time, but it's extremely difficult for me to imagine what it would be like for objective moral values to exist in the fabric of space-time.
LennyBound (October 17, 2008 at 11:18 am)
I've uploaded a video similar to this one about "Moral Error Theory" that explains the position a little more. :-)
lukeev (October 24, 2008 at 9:26 pm)
You might like this video: watch?v=CueDiner6t0