Meta-Ethics: Difference between revisions
From BurnZero
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''While normal ethics addresses such questions as "''What should I do?''", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "''What is good?''" and "''How can we tell what is good from what is bad?''".''' At its core it addresses the relativity of ethics (or moral relativism) is the concept that something that is deemed ''good'' might not be good for everyone. i.e. the words ''good'' or ''bad'' are relative terms and their meaning is entirely dependent on its contextual [[framing]]. | [[File:Good or evil.jpg|thumb|Isn't Good or Evil, just a matter of perspective?]] | ||
'''While normal ethics addresses such questions as "''What should I do?''", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "''What is good?''" and "''How can we tell what is good from what is bad?''".''' At its core it addresses the relativity of ethics (or moral relativism) which is the concept that something that is deemed ''good'' might not be good for everyone. i.e. the words ''good'' or ''bad'' are relative terms and their meaning is entirely dependent on its contextual [[framing]]. | |||
Revision as of 03:26, 6 December 2022
While normal ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do?", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is good?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?". At its core it addresses the relativity of ethics (or moral relativism) which is the concept that something that is deemed good might not be good for everyone. i.e. the words good or bad are relative terms and their meaning is entirely dependent on its contextual framing.