Meta-ethics

Questions to debate:

1.Should right or wrong be based on 1)what the bible or some other religion's commandments says, 2)what gives us spiritual peace, 3)the motivations of the agent, 4)the agent's act, 5)the consequences of the act, or 6)the specific context of the individual case? e.g. Singer says utilitarianism is best as rules fail any difficult moral issue by contradiction.

2. Which assumptions in the table below are more realistic or beliefs are more believable?

3. Rather than one approach being the best, can we reconcile the different ethics theories so they all contribute to our moral choices? For example, do some theories apply in some situations more than others? For example, does it depend on what culture you are in? Or does it depend on our goals? For example, an emphasis on consequences gives more freedom. An emphasis on rules restraining actions gives more objectivity and consistency.

4. Can secular ethics reconcile with religious ethics? e.g. Buddhism co-exists with many religions.

5. Do we lose too much in the detail by categorising theories and taking a meta view?

6. What criteria should we use to judge the best theories? One article suggested the following:

1. Rationally based 2. Logically consistent 3. Universalizable 4. Should be teachable 5. Have the ability to resolve conflicts. Are these adequate?

7. Is ethics relative or universal? Singer says must be universal as relativism has implausible consequences.

8. Is ethics objective or subjective? Singer says it is objective. Since if it is subjective, it cannot account for ethical disagreement. Or should morality be both rational and satisfy emotions?

9. Why should we be moral? Philippa Foot says morality is not a binding force. People are motivated by desires rather than morality. Mill says people are influenced by social structure and external pressure (like needing to please). Are there better reasons?

I have created the below table comparing and contrasting at a meta-level the different normative approaches.

Table comparing normative ethics

Below are some simple readings that compare and contrast different approaches to Normative Ethics. Philippa Foot's obituary talks about why we should be moral, rather than what is moral.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/theories.htm

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/05/philippa-foot-obituary

Peter Singer Practical Ethics, Chapter 1 "About Ethics" A copy is at the following link:

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Peter-Singer-Practical-Ethics-2nd-edition.pdf