Analytic ethics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Railton
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Theory Of Action

Moral philosophy has traditionally been divided into normative ethics and meta-ethics. Normative ethics concerns judgments about what is good and how we should act. Meta-ethics, with which ’analytic ethics’ is typically identified, seeks to understand such judgments. Are they factual statements capable of being literally true or false (cognitivism)? Or are they commands or expressions of attitude, capable only of greater or lesser appropriateness or efficacy (noncognitivism)? Cognitivists focus on whether the facts to which they claim moral judgments correspond are discovered from experience, or whether they occupy a different realm, as do mathematical facts. Noncognitivists, in contrast, arguing that moral judgments are not fact-stating, ask if they signal our feelings or commitments, or are imperatives of conduct. Other questions concerning moral judgments include whether they are subjective or objective, and how they are connected to motivation. Analytic ethics therefore not only concerns the meaning of moral terms, but ranges over such areas as epistemology, metaphysics and the theory of action. As a field it remains full of controversy. It has developed approaches that afford specific insights into morality, and contributed to our understanding of the functions of thought and language.

Normative Ethics

Philosophy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Feminist Ethics ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Moral Utterance ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Limiting Case ◽  
Intense Debate

Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy that theorizes the content of our moral judgments or, as a limiting case, denies that any such theories are possible (the position of the so-called anti-theorists). While meta-ethics focuses on foundational issues concerning the semantics of moral utterance and how our moral views fit more broadly into a general conception of reality, normative ethics focuses on the major theoretical approaches to the content of moral reflection. It is shaped by the historical inheritance of the tradition of moral philosophy in the West in its focus on deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics as the major forms of normative ethical theory. These standard theories have been more recently complemented by the new field of feminist ethics, and innovations in ethical theory have added hybrid theory and contractualism to the list. All of these views continue to be the subject of intense debate and further refinement.

Framing Morality: How Antecedent-Focused Strategies Can Shape Moral Judgments

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Kappes ◽  
Jay Joseph Van Bavel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Moral Decision ◽  
Process Dissociation ◽  
Moral Decision Making ◽  
First Response ◽  
High Conflict

From moral philosophy to programming driverless cars, scholars have long been interested in how to shape moral decision-making. We examine how framing can impact moral judgments either by shaping which emotional reactions are evoked in a situation (antecedent-focused) or by changing how people respond to their emotional reactions (response-focused). In three experiments, we manipulated the framing of a moral decision-making task before participants judged a series of moral dilemmas. Participants encouraged to go “with their first” response beforehand favored emotion-driven judgments on high-conflict moral dilemmas. In contrast, participants who were instructed to give a “thoughtful” response beforehand or who did not receive instructions on how to approach the dilemmas favored reason-driven judgments. There was no difference in response-focused control during moral judgements. Process-dissociation confirmed that people instructed to go with their first response had stronger emotion-driven intuitions than other conditions. Our results suggest that task framing can alter moral intuitions.

Nietzsche and Contemporary Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Practical Reason ◽  
Value Theory ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Ethical Thought ◽  
Normative Authority ◽  
Moral Theories ◽  
Principal Parts

Nietzsche is one of the most subversive ethical thinkers of the Western canon. This book offers a critical assessment of his ethical thought and its significance for contemporary moral philosophy. It develops a charitable but critical reading of his thought, pushing some claims and arguments as far as seems fruitful while rejecting others. But it also uses Nietzsche in dialogue with, so to contribute to, a range of long-standing issues within normative ethics, metaethics, value theory, practical reason, and moral psychology. The book is divided into three principal parts. Part I examines Nietzsche’s critique of morality, arguing that it raises well-motivated challenges to morality’s normative authority and value: his error theory about morality’s categoricity is in a better position than many contemporary versions; and his critique of moral values has bite even against undemanding moral theories, with significant implications not just for rarefied excellent types but also us. Part II turns to moral psychology, attributing to Nietzsche and defending a sentimentalist explanation of action and motivation. Part III considers his non-moral perfectionism, developing models of value and practical normativity that avoid difficulties facing many contemporary accounts and that may therefore be of wider interest. The discussion concludes by considering Nietzsche’s broader significance: as well as calling into question many of moral philosophy’s deepest assumptions, he challenges our usual views of what ethics itself is—and what it, and we, should be doing.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Simon Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Practical Reason ◽  
Value Theory ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Ethical Thought ◽  
Ethical Project

This opening chapter explains the book’s overarching aims, themes, structure, and approach. The book’s aim is to critically assess Nietzsche’s ethical thought and its significance for contemporary (broadly analytic) moral philosophy. It does this in two main ways: by developing a charitable but critical reconstruction of his ethics; and by using Nietzsche to contribute to a range of longstanding issues within normative ethics, metaethics, value theory, practical reason, and moral psychology. The chapter locates Nietzsche’s ethical project in his ‘revaluation of all values’, outlining a variety of interpretive and philosophical puzzles this raises. It then gives a chapter-by-chapter overview of the book’s topics and direction, and addresses some methodological matters bearing on its interpretive and philosophical ambitions.

Butler's Theory of Moral Judgment

1978 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 199-225
Author(s):  
Roger A. Shiner
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Epistemology ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Main Interest

It is something of a commonplace of Butlerian interpretation that the main interest and achievements of Butler's moral philosophy are in normative ethics, and not metaethics. He wishes to bring moral enlightenment to citizens and not, to philosophers, epistemological enlightenment. Nonetheless for that he makes a number of remarks which, if we were collecting for some bizarre purpose metaethical forms of words, we would note down and include in our collection. Thus he makes some progress towards the development of a moral epistemology, a theory of moral judgment. My purpose here is to assess those steps, and to see how far the structure which results can be called a theory. I have the impression that much of the reluctance among scholars to allow that Butler does have a theory of moral judgment is caused by the metaethical blinkers that they themselves wear; what is in fact the beginnings of an unfashionable and unconventional theory is seen as unsophisticated confusion. But I shall not overdo praise of Butler. I shall suggest that Aristotle does a somewhat better job of developing this type of theory.

A Dictionary of Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence Cuneo
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Key Terms

This authoritative dictionary contains clear, concise definitions of key terms from ethical theory and touches upon a variety of relevant subfields including metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. A Dictionary of Ethics is a valuable reference resource for academics, practitioners, and students of moral philosophy, applied ethics, and public policy. It will also be of interest to readers looking to familiarize themselves with ethical terms and the concepts they express.

Catching Up With Castañeda

Dialogue ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 671-685
Author(s):  
L. W. Sumner
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Discourse ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Truth Values ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
Express Emotion ◽  
Moral Philosophers

Remember the fifties? That was, among other things, when it was outré for moral philosophers acutally to use moral discourse and de rigueur to theorize about its use. It was when we all read Stevenson and Hare and learned to believe that moral judgments had no truth values and were used to express emotion or to issue imperatives. It was when we came to realize that all previous moral philosophy rested on the mistake of supposing that moral judgments were propositions. How remote it all seems now. Today we write about social justice, sex, death, politics as though there were no question this might be improper. We no longer have the time and patience for the idler and more distant questions of the metalevel. It is correct certainly to call this progress but at a certain price. We tired of the old questions but we never learned how to answer them. The very grip of the noncognitivist fad made illuminating answers unlikely. Perhaps now that the fad is buried and forgotten we can go back to the issues and deal with them in a more fruitful manner.

Objectivity in Morals

Philosophy ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 25 (93) ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Kneale
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Philosophers ◽  
Emotive Meaning

It is remarkable that we have to-day a number of philosophers who call themselves subjectivists in moral philosophy. For, although the name “subjectivist” is by no means new, philosophers have reserved it hitherto for their opponents, and usually for imaginary opponents at that. Perhaps the chief cause of the change which has taken place in recent years is the discovery of a distinction between descriptive and emotive meaning. In the past the only form of subjectivism considered by writers on moral philosophy was the suggestion that moral sentences such as “You ought to do that” were statements about the speaker's own attitude; and it was easy to refute this by pointing out that we discuss questions of morals in a way which would be unintelligent, and even unintelligible, if moral judgments were only reports of introspection. But those who now call themselves subjectivists maintain that the peculiarity of moral words is their expressive and evocative power. According to their analysis, a speaker who uses one of these words in an indicative sentence may be stating nothing at all, but is undoubtedly trying to influence others (and perhaps also himself) to adopt a certain attitude. This, they say, explains how there can be genuine disagreement about questions of morals and why discussion may produce results. If A tries to evoke one attitude in his hearers and B tries to evoke an incompatible attitude, their utterances are opposed, not indeed like contradictory statements, but rather like the efforts of men engaged in a tug-of-war.

scholarly journals Kant à la Davidson: Maximen als Proeinstellungen

2009 ◽  
pp. 47-84
Author(s):  
Oliver Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Acid Test

Was sind Maximen gemäß Kants Moralphilosophie? Diese Frage entsteht, da Kant zwar eine Explikation von ‚Maxime‘ als ‚subjektives Prinzip des Wollens‘ angibt, diese Explikation aber selbst wieder sehr dunkel bleibt und schwer verständlich ist. Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage werde ich in einem ersten Teil versuchen, plausible Kandidaten dafür zu ermitteln, was unter Maximen zu verstehen ist. Dabei wird sich zeigen, dass Kandidaten, die aus Davidsons Handlungstheorie stammen, sehr geeignete Kandidaten sind. In einem zweiten Teil sollen diese Kandidaten dann ‚auf Herz und Nieren‘ geprüft werden. Dazu werde ich in Anlehnung an Rüdiger Bittner diskutieren, ob die Kandidaten, die sich im ersten Teil als die plausibelsten erweisen, gewisse Grundanforderungen an Maximen erfüllen (An die auf der Annahme, Maximen seien die hier favorisierten Kandidaten, beruhende Maximenkonzeption gibt es folgende zwei Grundanforderungen: erstens die Möglichkeit der Explikation, was es heißt, dass eine Maxime vorliegt, auch wenn ihr nicht gefolgt wird, zweitens die Möglichkeit der Unterscheidung zwischen dem Befolgen einer Maxime und dem Handeln lediglich gemäß einer Maxime). Und ich werde mich dazu ferner der Frage widmen, ob bestimmte Kritiken, die an – nicht identischen, aber – ähnlichen Kandidaten für Maximen vorgebracht wurden, auch für die hier präsentierten Kandidaten einschlägig sind. Schließlich werde ich in diesem zweiten Teil noch gewisse Schwächen der von mir favorisierten Maximenkonzeptionen erläutern, die man unabhängig von Bittners Kritikpunkten konstatieren könnte.What are maxims in Kant's moral philosophy? This question arises because the explanation of 'maxim' Kant offers, namely as being a subjective principle of volition, remains dark and hard to understand as it stands. To answer this question I will first try to find plausible candidates for what might count as a maxime. It will turn out that candidates which come from Davidson's theory of action are very plausible candidates, indeed. In a second part of the paper these candidates should be "put through the acid test", so to speak: Following Rüdiger Bittner, I will discuss whether those candidates, which are, according to part one of the paper, the most plausible ones, meet some basic requirements maxims have to fulfill. And I will - still following Bittner - attend to the question whether certain critiques that were put forward against some similar maxim-candidates are relevant for those candidates here presented. Finally I am going to explain in this second part of the paper some remaining weaknesses one could point out against the conceptions of maxims I favour and which could be stated independently from Bittner's critiques.

scholarly journals Adam Smith and cultural relativism

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Fleischacker
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
The Relationship

This paper explores the presence of both relativistic and universalistic elements in Adam Smith’s moral philosophy. It argues that Smith is more sympathetic to the concerns of anthropologists than most philosophers have been, but still tries to uphold the possibility of moral judgments that transcend cultural contexts. It also argues that the tensions between these aspects of his thought are not easy to resolve, but that Smith’s sensitivity to the issues that give rise to them makes him a useful figure with whom to think through the relationship between anthropology and moral philosophy to this day.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document