j'ai une question si vous pouvez traduire Pouvons nous dire que l'éthologie a mis fin au debat philosophique ? Puisqu'on sait que l'ethique est un résultat de l'evolution ?
meta-ethics: (also, metaethics), this is the over-arching principle which guides all moral judgments. According to the teaching of this book, there is but a single, succinct definition of morality, and that is whether or not any particular volitional act causes HARM to oneself or to another living creature. Any other paradigm of morality (at least those in the anti-realism camp), such as utilitarianism, ethical subjectivism, and other non-objectivist theories of morality, necessarily belong to the field of normative ethics. Read Chapter 12 for a complete disquisition of both meta-ethics and normative ethics. However, since that chapter may be too deep philosophically for the great majority of the population, the following is an excruciatingly-simple formula which one can memorize in order to know the distinction between the two categories of ethics: Metaethics = HARM. Normative ethics = UNDUE harm. So, “meta-ethics” refers to any kind of intentional harm, whilst “normative ethics” refers to the discernment of whether that harm is justified harm or if it is unjustified harm. Cf. “normative ethics”.
Nice video and intro to the topic. But some of your explanations are woolly and like much of education today is focussed on showing rigid taxonomies rather teaching students how to think for themselves. Then again this is only A-level standard, so teaching students about well known concepts in philosophy rather than how to do it is ok. Some your assertions in your slides are not supportable.
