• Mill’s theory is frequently called Hedonistic Utilitarianism because it equates happiness with a pleasurable state of mind. Thus we ought to promote the most pleasure for the most people. Sober rejects that theory as failing the test of reciprocal illumination.

• Ex:

• Cheating can ruin a relationship (Descriptive: Is claim)
• Cheating is wrong. (Ethical: Ought claim)

We cannot deduce the conclusion without adding another claim.

Cheating can ruin a relationship (Descriptive: Is claim)

Ruining relationships is wrong (Ethical: Ought claim)

Cheating is wrong (Ethical: Ought claim)

Note that all that Hume claims is that we cannot deduce (validly) an Ought from an Is. But that does not mean that our description claims cannot be evidence for, or part of an non-deductive argument.

Suppose that Hume is correct. How might this be an argument for Subjectivism? The subjectivist might formulate an argument like this:

You can’t validly deduce an ethical argument from purely descriptive premises.

Ethical statements are neither true nor false.

But you can see that this argument itself is not valid. A further premise is needed.

P1 You can’t validly deduce an ethical argument from purely descriptive premises.

P2 If ethical statements are not deducible from purely descriptive premises then

Ethical statements are neither true nor false.

Ethical statements are neither true nor false.

But is P2 plausible? Perhaps but if you are likely to believe it, you are likely to doubt that there are ethical facts. So it is likely question begging.

• This is the idea that ethical claims serve to express our emotional responses to some action. “That is wrong” simply means “I feel bad about that” or “I reject that.” This may sometimes be true, but that does means the ethical claims have no content (make no assertions about the world).



• “Ethical Statements are neither true nor false.”
  • This means that the following statements are incorrect according to Subjectivism:
    • “It is wrong to steal candy from children.”
    • “It is not wrong to steal candy from children.”

• One of the central metaethical concerns is the status of moral claims with regard to truth. Are moral claims true or false, or do they at best represent people’s opinions? If the latter, one may wonder why we study them, or argue about them, at all.

Alternative Metaethical Positions (on the above question)

• Subjectivism:
  • There are no ethical truths (just individual opinions)
• Realism:
  • There are objective ethical truths (independent of anyone’s beliefs)
• Conventionalism:
  • There are ethical truths, but they are dependent on someone’s say so.
• God’s
  • Divine command theory
• Society’s
  • Cultural Relativism
• Individual’s
  • Existentialism



• Questions about ethics in general, not about particular cases, or about how to judge an action. Metaethics deals with the conditions which would make moral action or judgment possible, or impossible, such as whether there is a right and wrong.

• Assumes that there is a right and wrong, then tries to explain what they are and why.

Description

• Fourteen species of Galapagos finches that evolved from a common ancestor. The different shapes of their bills, suited to different diets and habitats, show the process of adaptive radiation.

Credit

• Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Commensalism derives from the English word commensal, meaning “sharing of food” in human social interaction, which in turn derives from the Latin cum mensa, meaning “sharing a table”.

Commensalism is more difficult to demonstrate compared to parasitism and mutualism, for it is easier to show a single instance whereby the host is affected, than it is to prove or disprove that possibility. Oftentimes, a detailed investigation will show that the host indeed has become affected by the relationship.

A well known example of mutualism is the relationship between ungulates (such as cows) and bacteria within their intestines. The ungulates benefit from the cellulase produced by the bacteria, which facilitates digestion; the bacteria benefit from having a stable supply of nutrients in the host environment.

Mutualism plays a key part in ecology. For example, mutualistic interactions are vital for terrestrial ecosystem function as more than 70% of land plants rely on mycorrhizal relationships with fungi to provide them with inorganic compounds and trace elements.

In addition, mutualism is thought to have driven the evolution of much of the biological diversity we see, such as flower forms (important for pollination mutualisms) and co-evolution between groups of species.[1] However mutualism has historically received less attention than other interactions such as predation and parasitism.[2][3]

Measuring the exact fitness benefit to the individuals is not always straightforward, particularly when the individuals can receive benefits from a range of species, for example most plant-pollinator mutualisms. It is therefore common to categorise mutualisms according to the closeness of the association, using terms such as obligate versus facultative. Defining “closeness,” however, is also problematic. It can refer to mutual dependency (the species cannot live without one another) or the biological intimacy of the relationship in relation to physical closeness (e.g. one species living within the tissues of the other species).[4]