An extremely brief introduction to the different schools of thought in meta-ethics.

Why the so-called is-ought "problem" or dilemma is not problematic or puzzling.

An Ethics project lol

On subjective versus objective ethics.

What is metaethics? How do we found a science of morality?

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings. In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1] In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right" or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right ...

*WATCH IN HIGH QUALITY THE BUTTON IS ABOVE VIEWS* Halo 3 Montage Metaethics and iHiDRoXiDE

Judith Jarvis Thomson is widely recognized for her work in moral philosophy and metaphysics. In moral philosophy, Thomson has made significant contributions to its sub-fields of applied ethics, moral theory, and meta-ethics. Her studies in metaphysics have largely covered the ontology of events and the identity across time of people and other physical objects. She is currently working on the question of what it is for one event to cause another. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [5/2005] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 9543]

Everett, this is not necessarily my perspective, but I will try to explain this as fair and as best that I can. Hypothetically, let me say that I am a Kantian, when it comes to my meta-ethics. I will then state that practical reason is the foundation of morality. It is true that practical reason is not found outside in the world, but is an essential feature of our consciousness. This being the case, practical reason also operates according to universal laws, so what practical reason dictates to me as being good, will also be the same for you. You seem to like Hume, so let me build off of that. I assume you are familiar with Hume's skepticism, and where that leaves us, with notions like causality not having justification. Kant comes around, and in his system of transcendental idealism has the understanding as applying 12 categories to experience to structure reality in an intelligible manner. Then reason comes along and can apply these categories outside of possible experience, which generates the antinomies, hence the critique of pure reason. Reason is then rehabilitated in a practical manner, and determining not what we know, but how we should act, and from this practical reason, morality has its foundations. There are other individuals that have similar perspectives; Kant is probably the most well known proponent of this view. What I did in my previous video was to try to give a more existentialist bent. I started from human freedom, and then universalized that by having all humans having this freedom, and making it a contradiction by using freedom to destroy freedom. I then took aspects of a phenomenology that sees the body mixed with the mind in the intentional meaning that is given to reality. I am going to get an essay on meta-ethics that will clarify this a great deal, and then I will be able to place this whole issue in a better format.

Patricia Churchland speaking at the "Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark" conference in October 2008. Her talk concerns the potential ethical implications of findings in the neurosciences. This is Part 1 of 2. For similar videos visit: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

Patricia Churchland speaking at the "Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark" conference in October 2008. Her talk concerns the potential ethical implications of findings in the neurosciences. This is Part 2 of 2. For similar videos visit: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

In light of the work by Philip Zimbardo and John Doris, who have shown the large effect of situations upon our ethical behavior, we need to reconsider our meta-ethics. Though heroic and villainous acts are still important, it is the decision about entering into a specific situation that allows for true moral behavior. Psychological research shows an overwhelming influence of the situation upon behavior and character, choosing our situations wisely can make the difference between acting ethically and not.

An explanation of moral statements and why they just don't work.