What can you remember about Intuitionism?

Non-cognivistism Prescriptivism Evaluate Prescriptivism as non-cognitive use of ethical language

Starting Point: Prescriptivism Like Emotivists, Prescriptivists believe: Values are not types of facts. They cannot be true or false (non- cognitive). Moral judgements do not state moral facts about the world (anti- realist). Moral discourse is therefore not informative or descriptive. It’s not about the facts of the world. They also make use of the Open Question argument highlighted by Moore to demonstrate that no definition of ‘good’ is adequate.

What’s in a name?: Prescriptivism If a doctor gives you a prescription, what is he intending? For Prescriptivists, moral statements are not just expressions of emotions, but commands or recommendations related to behaviour.

“The function of moral principles is to guide conduct” R. M. Hare “The function of moral principles is to guide conduct”

RM Hare and prescriptivism Moral judgements are prescriptive (express certain behaviour) Moral judgements have universal qualities Ethical statements say what ought to be done Universal prescriptivism is superior Everyone should do the same in similar situations Ethical statements express will/wishes Moral statements are objective Moral statements command behaviour

RICHARD HARE’S THEORY Richard Hare claimed that ethical statements are not just expressions of our feelings. Moral language is also prescriptive, which means that it tells us how we ought to behave.

Hare’s theory is called prescriptivism. It prescribes what a person should do. When a person says ‘You shall not murder’ this is not just an expression of personal revulsion at the thought of killing. It is like a doctor’s prescription, in that it will vary from person to person. It also means that everyone should follow this moral truth.

The Universalizability Principle Hare argued that moral statements had a universal quality and it’s in our best interest prescribe the advice to others. This is an example of the universalisability principle. When an individual prefers one thing over something else, this implies that this preference would be good for anybody. For example: If X prefers to care for a sick person rather than go to the pub, this implies that were X to be sick then he or she would wish someone to act in the same way towards them.

Moral principles are universalisable When we use moral language (e.g. say: ‘giving to charity is good’) we are generally giving a command (e.g. ‘you should give to charity’). We also assume a set of standards by which that thing would be judged e.g. charity supports others, this is something we should want. Because of these standards, our moral judgements for similar situations should be the same. Otherwise we’re contradicting ourselves. The distinctive feature of moral principles is that we follow and make them consistently, and our principles don’t contradict each other.

Debate about morality… This universalisability of moral prescriptions allows for reasoning about morality – we can’t just value whatever we like Why? Although I can’t reason about my purely emotive expressions (emotivism) being able to universalise moral principles means being able to give reasons why they are logically consistent. Why my standards are better than yours. This is what we do when we enter moral discourse: we reason with each other about the consistency of certain principles.

Where did Hare’s ideas originate? Hare’s theory of the universal nature of morals was greatly influenced by events in his life. He served in the army during WW2 and spent 3 years as a Prisoner Of War in Changi prison and building the Burma-Thailand railway. The brutality of the Japanese treatment of prisoners deeply affected his attitude to morality. It was this experience that led him to develop a secular form of the Golden Rule. He did not believe that the abuse he received could ever be universalizable.

What type of basic ideas does Prescriptivism assert? That moral sentiment is not enough. The individual’s morality must involve doing what is morally required. That ethical action has to be consistent. It is important in all situations to practise a consistent morality. That moral belief must be kept in harmony with others. That the moral agent cannot be hypocritical.

Summary – Moral Language… It is used to commend, to provide guidance for choosing what to do. It assumes a set of standards, features in virtue of which something counts as e.g. good / bad / right / wrong etc. These standards are moral standards but they are adopted, rather than being true or false. Two relevantly similar things must both be good / bad / right / wrong etc. or not. To think otherwise is logically contradictory. When we engage in ethical discourse we are attempting to show that our own prescriptions are consistent (not logically contradictory) and prescriptive, and are the best standards for that situation.

What type of basic ideas does Prescriptivism assert?

So ……………… What does prescriptivism mean So ……………… What does prescriptivism mean? Write a comprehensive definition Ethical language is prescriptive. An ethical statement says what ought to be done and these are moral because they are universal. Ethical statements do not state facts and are not true or false, but are expressions of our will or wishes. IF we use the word ‘good’ in a moral sense we are using a set of standards that apply to a person or action and we commend that person or action. If we say someone ought to do something, we are saying that we ought to do it as well.

Ethical statements should not be universalised. Debate on your desk…….. Ethical statements should not be universalised. YES NO

Prescriptivism Non-cognitivist Moral judgements prescribe, which means they guide action or make recommendations. Anti-realist Agrees with Moore that naturalism is wrong to say moral statements just describe: they also express They don’t attempt to persuade or influence (as emotivism claims): they are commands, moral imperatives.

This means… Moral terms are imperatives Terms like ‘good’ / ‘bad’ – commend. By using this term we want to identify something or someone as praiseworthy. Term’s like ‘ought’ / ‘should’ / ‘right’ – prescribe By using these terms we are stating that someone should be behaving in a particular way. Either way our words are intended to guide / command someone’s behaviour.

What do you understand? Discuss According to prescriptivism, what would be meant by these moral statements?: Happiness is good. Killing is wrong It is right to make charitable donations. Drinking and driving is bad. Helping someone cheat is not a good thing.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of prescriptivism?

What is problem of prescriptivism? Mackie argues that if prescriptivism is culturally aware, morality cannot be universal Hare believes in no true or false morality, meaning that, for example, Hitler's universalised hatred of the Jews was not right or wrong It disregards the logic and reasoning behind moral statements in favour of recommendation Hare's logic means that any ridiculous theory could be moral. For example, eating burgers every Monday morning could become moral if someone branded it as good There is no reason to follow any moral law(s) - they're simply based on what people want you to do

What’s good in prescriptivism? Prescriptivism is straight-forward Prescriptivism seems logical and realistic - when we make moral judgements we are often prescribing courses of action. If moral commands are universalisable, they are applicable to all and thus easy to follow. It solves the emotivist issue of moral language being meaningless - instead they are prescribed actions.