Meta Ethics OCR Religious Studies Lockdown Special!

[@isobelfisher9732]

i dont know if this channel is active anymore but you are carrying me through my A level

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That's great to hear Isobel, I hope your course is going really well :)

[@alicesimpson7642]

this video is so helpful! thank you so much for all of your videos they really make a difference :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That is wonderful to hear Alice. Good luck in your exam tomorrow :)

[@genie4935]

This was really helpful for my revision! You're a great teacher.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Thank you very much ☺️ I am pleased my videos are helping.

[@jz3837]

When MacIntyre argues that emotivism does not distinguish between feelings and moral feelings, what does this criticism mean? As on the slide before it says Stevenson claimed moral statements were influenced by ones beliefs and then influence others to hold this same view, I understand this as: every feeling is about something moral, which makes sense. But this makes MacIntyre's redundant as then it means there as all feelings are moral to some extent. So am just a bit confused on MacIntyre's point against emotivism.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Totally understand what you mean and this would form some good discussion in an essay. I think the crux of it is, Stephenson is interested in how moral statements are used and what response they are intended to produce and MacIntyre is questioning where those moral judgements come from in the first place. Don't forget meta ethics is about the meaning of the ethical words so I think MacIntyre is questioning how we distinguish morals from feelings in order to then see how they are used. Hope this helps :)

[@Grace-vu8vf]

been watching your videos this week for revision; you are excellent! out of interest- which out of ethical naturalism, intuitionism and emotivism do you think is most effective?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Grace, thanks for your comment I am pleased you find my videos helpful. I think EN and In are more effective than emotivism. Easiest way to work out what you think is by using a real life case, I get my students to react to the James Bulger case. Are the boys who did it bad based on evidence, deep routed instinct or an emotional response? From this way of thinking I would argue EN is most effective due to the lack of clarity of what intuitions actually are and how intuitions might differ over people. All approaches have problems, making for a good discussion in an essay. Hope this helps :)

[@Grace-vu8vf]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Ah that makes a lot of sense yes! I perhaps think intuition is the one I 'veer' to more, just because I kind of see it as the middle of the spectrum from EN-IN-E, I tend to sway with Humes criticism on EN, and especially the fact that there must be something more to it than a 'fact leading to an ethical conclusion', but I really do like the view that Phillipa Foot takes in response- the whole 'we know if someone is an honest person because we can observe a person being honest'. I do just think maybe this empiricism isn't everything- not to mix philosophy and ethics but I think I prefer rationalism over our senses that can ultimately fail us (how very Plato-eque of me). One could also make an argument in the fact you could observe a person 'looking honest'- take Kantian ethics here- of the shopkeeper being nice, but it is just because the shopkeeper wants your business thus actually senses are deceiving and there is an ulterior motive to most things. At the same time there surely has to be more to it than our emotions? Emotivism is too subjective or 'opaque' as you stated before. So the way I look at it, which I don't know if this is right, but intuitionism is a 'happier medium', I do think as humans we have an understanding of these prima facie duties that are mentioned, and I think we all understand general vs moral thinking, and I think sometimes we act how we do just because it feels right to us- I probably take this approach because I like Situation Ethics though- and this certainly seems more like a 'what is morally suitable for the situation approach', making me turn a blind eye to weaknesses such as what intuition actually is?... AH! I could go around in circles like most things in RS- but it certainly makes for an interesting discussion- the way I was taught Meta Ethics made me hate it, and I told myself I would always miss it out as a question- but after watching this, thinking about real life examples and having a good old think- I think you may have taken me to the 'dark meta ethics side'- i'm a tad invested now!...

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

@Grace that is an excellent discussion of the different perspectives. I really like how you link it to normative ethics (Kant/SE) to apply the meaning of Intuitionism yet still discuss the benefit and flaws with all approaches. This is definitely a winner for your exam, maybe practising writing an essay before hand will really help clarify your views further :)

[@palps8624]

Do you post exam practice videos? Loving the content.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Thank you ☺️ there are a few 'mark with me' videos found on the blog/membership and there are some planning and tips videos on KZbin :)

[@coragane5127]

Hi, is the 'begging the question' criticism good for Intuitionism as a critique? That Moore comes to the conclusion by assuming that 'i.e. swearing= bad' can't be a statement relating to the natural world because i.e. 'pleasure= good' 'pleasure from swearing= good' > Moore has assumed this in the Naturalistic fallacy argument, but has not proven that this is an open-ended question, only used the argument to support his assumption. I think that's the argument from my understanding- and does the 'begging the question' criticism come up in Philosophy as a whole? Because this would also be called a 'Categorical Mistake', in that Moore is 'begging' his argument into truth by saying 'x=good' so 'y=good' - and then saying that this is wrong and so moral properties cannot be related to the natural world. But has not proved that- only come to the logic through his *assumption*. Apologies if this does not make any sense haha. (and sorry for the many questions I'm leaving...). I hope this makes sense as a question, thank you for your help.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Cora, I have never actually come across the 'begging the question fallacy' but it looks like a great argument to go down (similar to burden of proof). I would say that fallacy works in most philosophy as they are drawing conclusions from an assumption made in a premise. I also think it does work in the NF point, just don't overcomplicate your answers and always link back to Q and your line of argument. Great work :)

[@victoriabaker2662]

hii, could you argue that a combination of ethical naturalism and intuitionism offer the best approach, as we develop our intuitions through observing our empirical world at a young age which then determines our overall outlook and perception of what is right and wrong. So ethical naturalism is not something that we consciously use everyday to examine the ‘wrongness’ of an action but instead it unconsciously alters our intuitions as we learn from what we have been exposed to. Once we get to a certain age we feel as if we have these concrete intuitions and moral standards but they are a product of our experience with the natural world as oppose to being born with pre- existing intuitions.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Victoria, that is very good exploration of ideas. Be clear in an essay that this is your compromise to make both arguments work better as Intuitionim is directly against EN (G E Moore's direct criticism) and EN would not agree as the ethical facts are not linked to intuition but facts within their own rights. An intuitionist would argue that it is intuition that leads the way not ethical facts. Hope that makes sense :)

[@victoriabaker2662]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach ohhh okay yes thank you that makes sense, would you recommend just picking one instead and arguing just for that?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

@@victoriabaker2662 If the question in specifically on one area discuss that one in full but you could bring in another theory as part of your evaluative discussion of why it is better or worse than the one in the Q :)

[@chloew968]

Hi, just wondering if for a general ethics essay (e.g. about the usefulness of Situation Ethics) would you need to apply it fully to an example? Including applying each of the 6FPs, for example? Thanks :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

If a specific to normative question you do not need to apply unless it works for your argument. So the 6/4 don't need to be applied only evaluated so unless application helps evaluate you do not have to apply :)

[@chloew968]

@@IThinkThereforeITeachThank you!! That’s such a relief. Do we need to compare the theories in a usefulness question, e.g. saying utilitarianism isn’t useful but NL is?

[@freddiejp3181]

hiya , i am slightly confused in what the spec wants us to say in response to the Ao2 point "whether or not what is meant by the word ‘good’ is the defining question in the study of ethics" ?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Freddie, what the question wants you to discuss is how each of the arguments understands the meaning of 'good' and how they come at it from different angles. So your evaluation comes from arguing which view is best and why in determining the meaning of 'good' as the defining question. Meta ethics as an argument is saying that you have to understand the meaning before you can apply (normative ethics) so it is the defining question in ethics is knowing the meaning of the word before applying it. It just depends which approach succeeds at this...that's what you argue. Hope that makes sense :)

[@freddiejp3181]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach thank you so much !!! Do you think that is likely to come up as a question or would it be too harsh as the wording isn’t quite clear ?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

I think after the Anselm Q in Philosophy anything is possible!! I think there will definitely be a meta ethics q so could be this one 🤔

[@freddiejp3181]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach very true that did shock me when I saw it but luckily I had prepared for it (I think) 🤣

[@abisquires1717]

Thanks so much for the video. I understand that naturalism says that morals are based on evidence, but I don't understand how they determine what is good. Saying that someone is honest can be verified with evidence, but verifying that someone is ‘good’ relies on an already established definition of good, so I was wondering if you knew what their definition of good would sound like. Or maybe we just don't need to know this for the exam?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

I think what you have there Abi is a very good criticism of EN. EN argues that true (ethical statements express propositions which are true) as objective features of the world independent of human opinion. What you are arguing is that this works but only when you have a factual basis to understanding the meaning of the word in the first place to then apply it appropriately to examples/building evidence. Does that make sense...what you are discussing would work nicely in an essay :)

[@abisquires1717]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach That makes it a lot clearer, thank you!

[@hareesharis4842]

Hi, with the Hitler example for ethical and non ethical statements shall it be used in the introduction for explaining key terms?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

I wouldn't go into that much detail in an intro. I would keep that for a main paragraph. Intros don't need examples :)

[@hareesharis4842]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach oh ok thank you for the tip and swift reply

[@Rua1557]

Hi, I'm a bit confused about something. Is natural law essentially an application of ethical naturalism idea?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

This is an excellent question. As Meta Ethics explores the meaning of ethical language and Natural Law is the application of this meaning to ethics (what is right and wrong, what we should and should not do) but both come initially from naturalism then yes there is a link. But remember that NL takes it further as it is a normative ethic which is different from meta ethics, as meta ethics does not influence action just where the meaning of the terms comes from. Hope this makes sense :)

[@Rua1557]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Makes perfect sense, thank you :)

[@Rua1557]

I have another question. Sorry! When metaethics says what is good is found in nature, does this exclusively mean just the natural world or could it also include human nature?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Do you mean ethical naturalism? Meta ethics just looks at the meaning of the words rather than normatively applying them. It is ethical naturalism that is a branch of meta ethics which I think you are talking about. If so EN focuses upon goodness as facts found within nature including human nature. Hope this helps :)

[@Rua1557]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach yes I meant to write naturalism and thank you

[@EmilyRotenberg-xo6yc]

Hi, I am slightly confused because my school taught us that Phillipa Foot was an intuitionist and in fact came up with the term intuitionism? Is this not correct and how should I bring her into an essay if she is both?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

How interesting! I know Phillipa Foot is signifcant to Virtue Ethics so is an Aristolian in nature and focuses a lot of use of language (analytical) but I wouldn't be surprised if some of her work can link to intuitionism but I've not heard that she came up with the name (quite possible). My understanding is that she takes a more ethical naturalist perspective following her virtue ethics but I am sure it could be argued these virtues are known through intuition. Sorry I cannot be clearer, i just have never heard her say anything directly about being an intuitionist :)

[@EmilyRotenberg-xo6yc]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you for your reply! She said "goodness is a non-definable property discovered by intuition" which could support her as being an intuitionist. Do you think it's maybe just better to say she holds a cognitive view rather than putting her into a category?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That would work well or you could discuss the different interpretations of that quote and how it could support both perspectives. Some might see that as a bad thing but I think it's quite good :)

[@user-tj6lt7hi2f]

Hi Thanks so much for this i just have a question i am still confused of naturalism is it okay if you can briefly explain it?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi, of course. EN argues that ethical statements are propositions or statements of truth. This is because of the evidence provided to back them up. So these propositions are made true by objective features of the world (evidence/facts) not human opinion. Does that make sense? :)

[@user-tj6lt7hi2f]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach so is it basically trying to say that ethical statements are true because you can back them up using empiricism not human opinion?

[@cullianways1110]

@@user-tj6lt7hi2f yeah ethical staments are true because observation of the world allows us to work out what is right n wrong

[@cullianways1110]

@@user-tj6lt7hi2f if u still don’t get it watch the 5 min natural law video on miss’s channel it’s basically that

[@user-tj6lt7hi2f]

@@cullianways1110 thankyouuuuu

[@alexfacchino3030]

is intuitivsim objective or subjective and is it relative? Thank you

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Alex, intuitionism argues that the meaning of ethics is objective :)

[@alexfacchino3030]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach perfect thank you. But unlike naturalism it can’t be defined? X

[@hareesharis4842]

Hi, can it be argued emotivism is only a matter of opinion that is falsifiable?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Yes emotivism is subjective, based on a personal emotional response that can be seen as opinion that can be falsified. Don't forget Ayer supports verification argument so he is arguing ethics is something that can be falsified :)

[@daisygreen9243]

Youre my life saver thank you so much ❤❤❤

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You are very welcome! I hope your exam goes really well this afternoon :)

[@danyal_qureshi]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You are very welcome, I hope it helped :)

[@Anonymouslyinactive11283]

Thank youuuuuu 💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You are very welcome, pleased I could help :)

[@ellisp3753]

So helpful :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

I'm really pleased it helped Ellis :)

[@ellisp3753]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Yeah i have really useful notes now on Meta Ethics :). Do you have anything on the Theology side of the course or is that not within OCR ( i believe my religious studies course is Edexcel) either way, your ethics and philosophy videos really help.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

@Ellis P I think Edexcel is a bit different to OCR but you will find a number of videos for Theology two in the first and second year playlists. I will keep adding more videos too as we approach the exams :)