website title

Students Zone / Questions / Chapter 21: Metaethics

1. Some people argue that as there is disagreement about moral questions morality must be a matter of personal opinion. But we also know that there is almost universal agreement about some moral questions, for example, that we should not randomly kill innocent and defenceless individuals. If this is true, doesn’t this suggest that in these cases there are right answers? And if there are right answers in the simpler cases, doesn’t this suggest that there are probably right answers in the more difficult cases; we just need to spend more time looking for them?

2. Are there experts on issues of morality? If there are, how do we know who they are? If there aren’t, why not?

3. When I make a moral decision does this imply anything about what other people should do in similar situations?

4. Are we right to disapprove of something simply because it is ‘unnatural’?

5. Are moral rules no different from the rules of etiquette: just a set of conventions?

6. Discuss the view that moral philosophy is nothing more than the analysis of moral language.

7. Most of us seem to believe we can tell the difference between, say, a bad car mechanic or a bad builder and a good one, and those who believe they can’t know how to find an expert who can. In other words we have no trouble believing that such evaluative questions have perfectly objective answers. So why shouldn’t a similar evaluative question about whether someone is a good man likewise have an objective answer?

8. If a man argues that it is permissible for him to have an affair, but not for his wife to do the same, is there anything inconsistent in his attitude?

9. Do moral considerations always override other considerations?

10. ‘What is the connection between the natural fact that an action is a piece of deliberate cruelty – say, causing pain just for fun – and the moral fact that it is wrong?’ (Mackie). Can you answer Mackie’s question?