Assignment #3

Meta Ethics

The Philosopher David Hume summed this up in what he termed the naturalistic
fallacy, which suggests that one cannot infer from is to ought, nor can one make an
inference from scientific observations to ethical arguments. At certain points in
ethical discussions and ethical inquiry, arguments get heated, and sometimes we
seem to go round and round, without making progress. It seems that we talk past one
another. It seems that we don't even understand each other. And that's because we use
the same words but mean different things by those words. That's the task of
metaethics. In order to understand the basis on which we distinguish bad from good,
right from wrong, rights from obligations, we need to analyze the meaning of these
terms. Meta ethics is thus not concerned with discovering what is right action or
what the obligations are or what ideals and values are preferable or how to become
virtuous

Metaethics asks such questions as:

 What is the meaning of ethical terms, such as good and right and should?
 What are the motives for acting ethically?
 What is the nature of moral reason? How is it different from other types of
reasoning?