METAETHICS: WHAT STUDIES, META-ETHICAL PROBLEMS - PHILOSOPHY - 2024

The metaethics is one of the areas of moral philosophy that examines the genesis and significance of ethical notions. For this reason it seeks to explain and decipher all the presuppositions and epistemological, metaphysical, psychological and semantic commitments of moral thought, its linguistic expression and its practice.

Likewise, metaethics investigates the link that exists between human motivation, values, and motives for action. It also inquires about the reasons why moral standards are those that give reasons to do or stop doing what they demand.

Source: pixabay.com

And finally, he tries to find moral responsibility in regard to questions related to the origin of freedom and its significance or not.

Although the problems that fall within its scope are abstract, this science tries to distance itself from essential debates within morality, and in this way to be able to ask itself about the assumptions and points of view of those who carry out those debates.

It is in this sense that it can be defined in the words of Peter Singer. This Australian philosopher and bioethicist affirms in front of his peers that metaethics is a term that suggests that “we are not committed to ethics but we observe it”.

What do you study (Field of study)

As it has been observed, defining metaethics is an arduous task, since it encompasses various concepts. This is perhaps due to the fact that it is one of the least defined areas within moral philosophy.

However, two areas can be mentioned as its most important questions: metaphysics and psychological. The first focuses on wondering if there is a morality that is not dependent on man. The second asks about the mental support that exists under moral judgments and behaviors.

Metaphysical question of metaethics

Within the metaphysics of metaethics, an attempt is made to discover whether moral value can be described within spirituality as an eternal truth. Or on the contrary, it is simply conventional agreements of human beings.

It is in this sense that there are two positions:

Objectivism

This position maintains that moral values ​​are objective, since although they exist as subjective conventions among human beings, they exist in the spiritual realm.

For this reason they are absolute and eternal, since they never change; and also universal since they apply to all rational beings and do not change over time.

The most radical example of this position has been Plato. Taking as a starting point the numbers and their mathematical relationships, he pointed out that both are abstract entities that already exist in the spiritual realm.

Another different point of view is the one that maintains morality as a metaphysical state because its mandates are divine. This means that they come from the will of God who is almighty and in control of everything.

Subjectivism

In this case, the objectivity of moral values ​​is denied. This is the case of the skeptics who affirmed the existence of moral values ​​but denied their existence as spiritual objects or divine mandates.

This position is known as moral relativism and is in turn divided into:

-Individual relativism. Understand that moral standards are personal and individual.

-Cultural relativism. It affirms that morality is not based only on individual preferences, but on the approval of the group or society.

Because of this the universal and absolute nature of morality is denied, and it is argued that moral values ​​change from society to society and over time. Examples of them are the acceptance or not of polygamy, homosexuality, among other issues.

Psychological question of metaethics

Here the psychological basis of both moral behavior and judgments is investigated, and specifically understanding what is the reason that leads the human being to be moral.

Within this position, several areas can be determined:

Reason and emotion

In this area, it is investigated whether reason or feelings motivate moral actions.

One of the defenders that in a moral evaluation the emotions are implied and not the reason was David Hume. For him even, "reason is and should be, a slave to passions."

On the other hand, there are other philosophers for whom reason is responsible for moral evaluations. The best known example of this position is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

For Kant, while emotions can influence behavior, they must be resisted. Therefore true moral action is motivated by reason and free from desires and emotions.

Altruism and selfishness

Here the point of view shifts between considering that men's actions are based on their personal desires, or to satisfy others.

For some, selfishness is what grounds selfish interests and directs all man's actions. Tomas Hobbes is one of the philosophers who defend egoistic desire.

Psychological altruism ensures that there is an instinctive benevolence in man that causes at least some of the actions to be motivated by such benevolence.

Female morals and male morals

The explanation of this dichotomy is based on the approach of the psychological differences between women and men. Although traditional morality focused on the man, there is a feminine perspective that can become a theory of value.

Feminist philosophers hold that traditional morality has been dominated by men. The reason for this is that both government and commerce were the models for the creation of rights and duties, thus shaping systems of rigid moral rules.

The woman on the other hand, traditionally dedicated herself to raising her children and doing housework. All these tasks involve more creative and spontaneous rules and actions, so that if the experience of women were used as a model for moral theory, morality would become the spontaneous care of others according to circumstance.

In the case of woman-centered morality, the proposal takes into account the agent involved in the situation and acts carefully within the context. When he focuses on the moral of man, the agent is mechanical and performs the task but remains at a distance and is unaffected by the situation.

Meta-ethical problems

Some of the problems that metaethics addresses refer to the answers to these questions:

- Do moral facts exist? If so, where and how did they originate? How do they set a suitable standard for our conduct?

-What is the relationship between a moral fact with another psychological or social fact?

-Is morality really a question of truth or taste?

-How do you learn about moral facts?

-What is referred to when a person refers to values? Or to moral behavior as good or bad?

-What do you mean when you say "good", "virtue", "conscience", etc.?

-Is the good an intrinsic value? Or does the good have a multipurpose value identifying it with pleasure and happiness?

-What is the relationship between religious faith and morality? How do you explain that faith necessarily implies a morally good attitude but acceptance of a moral point of view does not imply accepting faith?

Theme and approach

Although one of the important questions within metaethics is the subject matter, it is not the only one. Moreover, some philosophers consider that even more relevant is the way in which these problems are approached.

Thus for Peter Singer the questions that a philosopher must ask are:

-Am I facing the facts correctly as a scientist would? Or am I just expressing personal or societal feelings?

-In what sense could it be said that a moral judgment is true or false?

For Singer, answering these questions leads the philosopher to the true theory of ethics, that is, to metaethics.

References

1. Bagnoli, Carla (2017). Constructivism in Metaethics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. stanford.library.sydney.edu.au.
2. Chiesa, Mecca (2003). On meta-ethics, normative and behaviorism. In Latin American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 289-297. Konrad Lorenz University Foundation Bogotá, Colombia. Recovered from redalyc.org.
3. Copp, David (2006). Introduction: Metaethics and normative ethics. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press. Pp. 3-35. Recovered from philpapers.org.
4. Fieser, James. Metaethics in Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. iep.utm.edu.
5. Miller, Alex (2003). An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Cambridge. UK.
6. Olafson, Frederick A. (1972). Meta-ethics and Normative Ethics. In The Philosophical Review, Vol. 81, Issue 1, pp. 105-110. Recovered from pdcnet.org.
7. Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2012). Metaethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plate.stanford.edu.
8. Singer, Peter (1991). A companion to Ethics. Oxford Blackwell.
9. Skinner, Burrhus Frederic (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York. Knopf
10. Sumner, Leonard Wayne (1967). Normative Ethics and Metaethics. In Ethics, Vol. 77, Issue 2, pp.95-106. Recovered from jstor.org.