Does the definition of the word ‘good’ define the study of ethics?
Mete-ethics questions what is really meant by the word good. When a moral judgement or
statement is made, when something is said to be right or wrong, good or bad, the words can
mean different things to different people. For example, G.E Moore argued that the word good
could not be defined whereas A.J Ayer argued that our concept and our understanding of good
and bad is meaningless and thus should certainly not define the study of ethics nor for
academic discourse. Through critical analysis of the various viewpoints, it will become clear that
the definition of good does not define the study of ethics.
Good does not define the study of ethics because it is simply something that is an emotional
response.
People do not know if something is intuitive as our concept of right or wrong is simply an
outburst or expression of beliefs. Mankind's inability to share a concept of what is good and bad
suggests that people do not know within themselves what is right or wrong. Whilst maintaining
that morality is cognitive, intuitionists assert that moral facts are self-evident and are known
intuitively. G.E Moor proposed that ‘good is good…[and] that it cannot be defined’. He argued
that intrinsically good things exist for their own sake and they cannot be broken down or
analysed but can be recognised. Moore, particularly concerned with rejecting utilitarians, argued
that goodness could not be defined, measured and quantified. Such attempts to define good for
example by defining good as that which produces the most pleasure is committing the
naturalistic fallacy. Good cannot be broken down into constituent parts. He likened good to the
colour yellow. We can demonstrate our knowledge of the colour yellow by pointing at the colour
yellow but any attempt to define the colour will fail. Good and bad are thus intuitively known. Yet
this is problematic as morality cannot be cognitive and intuitive if people have different intuitive
understandings of good and bad.(Freidrich) Nietzsche convincingly raised the issue of ethical
colour blindness to highlight how different intuitions may point to different ideas of right and
wrong; what one may see as yellow another may see as green. If knowledge of good and bad is
a priori and cannot be proven by outside criteria, then there is no way to prove whose
interpretation of moral dilemma is correct. If a murderer thought murder was right and killed
someone who thought it was wrong there would be no way of discerning who had knowledge of
moral truth. If no terms can be proved or disproved they are merely a matter of expression.
Therefore, it seems as though moral expressions do not come from within but are merely
emotional responses. Therefore, it is clear that people do not just know what is right or wrong in
themselves because our intuitions can lead us astray. Therefore, it is clear that the word good is
not the defining point of ethics.
Furthermore, the definition of good does not define the study of ethics because in defining good
we commit the naturalistic fallacy. Ethical naturalism is a meta-ethical doctrine, which maintains
that moral truths can be empirically discovered via observation of the world. Naturalism believes
moral statements to be cognitive as they can be judged to be true or false using a posteriori
knowledge. Thomas Aquinas, a theological naturalist, argued that goodness Is linked to the will
of God as seen in nature. God defined morality; murder is wrong because God commands
Mete-ethics questions what is really meant by the word good. When a moral judgement or
statement is made, when something is said to be right or wrong, good or bad, the words can
mean different things to different people. For example, G.E Moore argued that the word good
could not be defined whereas A.J Ayer argued that our concept and our understanding of good
and bad is meaningless and thus should certainly not define the study of ethics nor for
academic discourse. Through critical analysis of the various viewpoints, it will become clear that
the definition of good does not define the study of ethics.
Good does not define the study of ethics because it is simply something that is an emotional
response.
People do not know if something is intuitive as our concept of right or wrong is simply an
outburst or expression of beliefs. Mankind's inability to share a concept of what is good and bad
suggests that people do not know within themselves what is right or wrong. Whilst maintaining
that morality is cognitive, intuitionists assert that moral facts are self-evident and are known
intuitively. G.E Moor proposed that ‘good is good…[and] that it cannot be defined’. He argued
that intrinsically good things exist for their own sake and they cannot be broken down or
analysed but can be recognised. Moore, particularly concerned with rejecting utilitarians, argued
that goodness could not be defined, measured and quantified. Such attempts to define good for
example by defining good as that which produces the most pleasure is committing the
naturalistic fallacy. Good cannot be broken down into constituent parts. He likened good to the
colour yellow. We can demonstrate our knowledge of the colour yellow by pointing at the colour
yellow but any attempt to define the colour will fail. Good and bad are thus intuitively known. Yet
this is problematic as morality cannot be cognitive and intuitive if people have different intuitive
understandings of good and bad.(Freidrich) Nietzsche convincingly raised the issue of ethical
colour blindness to highlight how different intuitions may point to different ideas of right and
wrong; what one may see as yellow another may see as green. If knowledge of good and bad is
a priori and cannot be proven by outside criteria, then there is no way to prove whose
interpretation of moral dilemma is correct. If a murderer thought murder was right and killed
someone who thought it was wrong there would be no way of discerning who had knowledge of
moral truth. If no terms can be proved or disproved they are merely a matter of expression.
Therefore, it seems as though moral expressions do not come from within but are merely
emotional responses. Therefore, it is clear that people do not just know what is right or wrong in
themselves because our intuitions can lead us astray. Therefore, it is clear that the word good is
not the defining point of ethics.
Furthermore, the definition of good does not define the study of ethics because in defining good
we commit the naturalistic fallacy. Ethical naturalism is a meta-ethical doctrine, which maintains
that moral truths can be empirically discovered via observation of the world. Naturalism believes
moral statements to be cognitive as they can be judged to be true or false using a posteriori
knowledge. Thomas Aquinas, a theological naturalist, argued that goodness Is linked to the will
of God as seen in nature. God defined morality; murder is wrong because God commands
