1. ‘Good’ Functional Moral Descriptive Prescriptive
“This wine is good because ‘x’”
This person is good because they care for others.

2. Meta Ethics (recap)
Some think ethical statements are either true or false and can be verified/falsified from observable facts (Empiricism)
But it is possible for people to disagree with a moral statement without empirical evidence (e.g. Religious Law).
Cognitivists think that ethical language carries truth values with it. Either it is true or false that ‘I am an excellent ethicist’
Non-cognitivists think that there is no truth value in ethical language. It is often seen as meaningless. So ‘I am an excellent ethicist’ is a subjective statement that only exhibits emotions, not facts.
Realists say that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world.
Anti Realists deny the objective existence of moral facts.

3. Is ethical language meaningful? Naturalism = YES!
What makes a good student? Naturalists would come up with some criteria that we can use to assess the question and try to get an answer that is provable with empirical evidence (senses). Naturalism says that all things are knowable using empirical evidence. We can say ethical statements are accurate, using empirical data, like we can say about other statements. Loz is an RS student Georgie is an excellent RS student How does this theory link to Natural Law??

4. Is ethical language meaningful? Non-Naturalism = YES!
‘Good’ can’t be defined by any type of natural experience. Good is not something that is found in things, but is used to describe an object or action.
Describe this colour: BLUE
It should be fairly difficult to do (even though you all have a sense of what it is to be blue) and G.E. Moore said ‘GOOD’ is the same as this. It can’t be defined or explained with any simpler language. The only way to explain BLUE is to give examples of it. This, Moore says, is the only way that you can understand goodness.
Moore thought that ethical language contained propositions that may be made true or false by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion. Goodness/ rightness cannot be natural properties (like the roughness of a tree’s bark). So, for Moore, ethical naturalism is wrong because it reduces moral terms/properties to the terms of non-moral properties.

5. Is ethical language meaningful? Intuitionism = YES!
Intuitionists (like Moore) think we understand basic moral principles using a special faculty called moral intuition. We just know when something is good (so can determine right, wrong, true or false).
H. A. Pritchard ( ) said that not only goodness, but our obligations are indefinable. We always just know what we ought to do. We combine reason and intuition in order to know what to do based on facts.
Everyone has a different moral intuition, some more developed and clearer than others. If we have a clash of intuitions, the greater obligation should be chosen.
W.D Ross ( ) Agreed that ‘good’ and ‘obligatory’ are indefinable. He said that a set of basic moral principles were apparent prima facie (at first appearance).
Moral obligations are apparent and must be followed unless another obligation trumps it.
This shows intuitionism at work as our intuition identifies our prima facie duties and we make moral decisions based on the intuition we have.
Although Ross says we should obey the greater prima facie duty, he doesn’t say how to identify greater duties.

6. Evaluating Intuitionism
He didn’t think that all people could inherit moral truth. Peoples morals differed because some people had clearer moral intuitions than others. Our intuition doesn't all reach the same degree of enlightenment.
Criticism: Prichard doesn’t adequately explain how we choose which option is correct when our intuitions differ.....How can we be sure who’s intuition is “more enlightened”?

7. BOOM! BOOOOOOO! MURDER IS BAD!! WHOOOOOOOOP ETHICS!!!! Emotivism Task:
Is ethical language meaningful? Ayer’s Emotivism = NO!
Emotivism
A.J. Ayer ( ) was a non-cognitivist who claimed that ethical statements cannot be true or false.
‘Ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings. They are calculated also to arouse feeling, and so to stimulate action’.
So when we are saying ‘ethics is a good subject’ we are really saying:
BOOM!
And when we say ‘murder is wrong’ we are saying:
BOOOOOOO!
MURDER IS BAD!!
WHOOOOOOOOP
ETHICS!!!!
Task:
Compare how these two statements are interpreted by cognitivists

8. Stevenson gives more meaning to ethical arguments
Emotivism Continued
C.L. Stevenson focussed on how emotive meaning of words might affect others.
Words like HONESTY may be used in a descriptive sense (describing the world), but can also have an emotive meaning to them that changes people’s minds and influences their choices.
E.g. ‘it is wrong to pull the wings off flies (/birds)’ might convince you to not do it.
So these subjective opinions can be more than opinions if they move to approval/disapproval. This gives emotive statements some meaning as they are more than just descriptive statements of emotion.

9. Is ethical language meaningful? Non-Naturalism = YES!
Prescriptivism
R.M. Hare claimed that moral statements were more than an expression of personal values/emotions. They were suggesting that other people should apply that same value and follow the same course of action in similar circumstances.
Ethical language is not descriptive, but is intrinsically prescriptive and implies what ought to be done and states that this is universal.
Everyone in the same position would be advised to take the same approach/course of action.
Ayer = Moral statements don’t describe anything factual
Stevenson = Moral statements are attitudes based on personal beliefs that attempted to persuade other people.
Hare disagreed that emotivism was subjective due to the nature of morality – it is more than expressing ideas or outlining behaviours.
Hare thought statements commanded behaviour and guiding actions because they prescribe attitudes – thus allowing for logical tests for consistency.
Moral statements, then, are imperatives that must be consistent with logic.

10. Prescriptivism – Non-Cognitivist, but useful
Is ethical language meaningful? Non-Naturalism = YES!
Prescriptivism – Non-Cognitivist, but useful
Hare didn’t see his approach as stating facts or something that can be qualified as true or false. So it is still non-cognitivist.
Prescriptivism is a way of expressing wishes or beliefs.
These prescriptive statements are like imperatives which order or request people to act in particular ways
If a prescriptivist says: Murder is wrong they are stating that they shouldn’t murder and neither should anyone.
Because this theory is focussed on Universalisability it states that actions are to be prescribed for everyone.

11. Summary of AO1 Naturalism Non-Naturalism Intuitionism Emotivism
Moral statements are cognitively qualifiable through use of empirical evidence.
Non-Naturalism
Moral statements are knowable through intuition, not through empirical evidence.
Intuitionism
Ethical and moral truths are known and understood by our intuition.
Emotivism
Moral statements don’t describe anything factual, only emotions.
Prescriptivism
Moral statements are persuasive imperatives that are aimed at changing moral behaviour.

12. Evaluating Naturalism
Moore used the ‘open question’ argument to disprove naturalism.
When a naturalist claims that goodness consists of things that lead to pleasure, we can then identify one of those things and still ask the question ‘But is it good?’. It may well be that a thing leads to pleasure but isn’t in itself intrinsically good.
So naturalistic definitions cannot be correct.

13. Evaluating Intuitionism
Criticism: Michael Palmer (1991) Where do these prima facie duties come from? How do we know that Ross’ choices are correct?

14. Evaluating Intuitionism
He didn’t think that all people could inherit moral truth. Peoples morals differed because some people had clearer moral intuitions than others. Our intuition doesn't all reach the same degree of enlightenment.
Criticism: Prichard doesn’t adequately explain how we choose which option is correct when our intuitions differ.....How can we be sure who’s intuition is “more enlightened”?

15. Strengths and weaknesses of cognitivism
It takes seriously the existence of moral absolutes. Morality is too important to be regarded simply as a matter of personal opinion.
It makes morality objective rather than subjective. This means that moral claims can be tested.

16. Strengths and weaknesses of cognitivism
It does not acknowledge the difference between moral statements and other statements. E.g. surely the claim that murder is wrong is fundamentally different from the statement that London is the capital of the UK?
In reality, opinions cannot be logically tested.

17. Overall critique......
G.J Warnock: intuitionism offers “only a confession of bewilderment....”