METAETHICS ESSAY PLANNING
Questions:
To what extent do ethical terms have meaning (40)
The word ‘good’ has no meaning (40)
Critically asses the view that intuitionism is the most plausible theory when assessing the value of
ethical language (40)
‘The word ‘good’ cannot be defined’ (40)
To what extent to ethical terms reflect natural properties (40)
‘good is meaningful’ (40)
The terms good bad right and wrong reflect only what is in the mind of people using them (40)
Good is best explained by emotivism (40)
Asses the view that good bad right and wrong are meaningless terms
, THE TERM GOOD HAS NO MEANING (40)
INTRO:
- A question highlighting the arguments of meta-ethics
- Can take a cognitivist approach – good has factual meaning (ethical naturalism and intuitionism)
- Non-cognitivism approach- ethical terms are not meaningful factually- clear distinction between
facts and values (emotivism)- believe good bad right and wrong reflect what is in the mind of the
person
My line of argument:
- Would follow the views of emotivism- good does have meaning but not in a factual way- in the
way it expresses emotion and personal opinion
PARA 1: ETHICAL NATURALISM
Against- why defining good is possible
FH Bradley
- Values are factual (good)- they can be defines using the natural properties of the world
- Moral truths can be proves and moral language can be factual- defined using empirical
knowledge and and sense experience from the natural world
Can be supported:
- Peter singer- having definitions of moral terms allows for ‘effective altruism’ (utilitarian)- if
ethical statements are factual then people are more likely to be charitable
- Example: if they see images of people starving for a charity campaign (using empirical
evidence to see that something is clearly wrong) then are more likely to donate money than if
they were just hearing about it from someone
For- why this doesn’t work
- Bradley is committing the naturalistic fallacy- stated by GE Moore
- Although we can have knowledge of ethical terms, they cannot be defined
- It is illogical to define non natural things with natural properties
- Hayward- ‘a term that is indefinable cannot be defines, and any attempt to define it is
fallacious”
So
- Ethical naturalism is not convincing as it fails to acknowledge the complexities of moral
language and cannot prove the meaning of good through naturalistic terms
Questions:
To what extent do ethical terms have meaning (40)
The word ‘good’ has no meaning (40)
Critically asses the view that intuitionism is the most plausible theory when assessing the value of
ethical language (40)
‘The word ‘good’ cannot be defined’ (40)
To what extent to ethical terms reflect natural properties (40)
‘good is meaningful’ (40)
The terms good bad right and wrong reflect only what is in the mind of people using them (40)
Good is best explained by emotivism (40)
Asses the view that good bad right and wrong are meaningless terms
, THE TERM GOOD HAS NO MEANING (40)
INTRO:
- A question highlighting the arguments of meta-ethics
- Can take a cognitivist approach – good has factual meaning (ethical naturalism and intuitionism)
- Non-cognitivism approach- ethical terms are not meaningful factually- clear distinction between
facts and values (emotivism)- believe good bad right and wrong reflect what is in the mind of the
person
My line of argument:
- Would follow the views of emotivism- good does have meaning but not in a factual way- in the
way it expresses emotion and personal opinion
PARA 1: ETHICAL NATURALISM
Against- why defining good is possible
FH Bradley
- Values are factual (good)- they can be defines using the natural properties of the world
- Moral truths can be proves and moral language can be factual- defined using empirical
knowledge and and sense experience from the natural world
Can be supported:
- Peter singer- having definitions of moral terms allows for ‘effective altruism’ (utilitarian)- if
ethical statements are factual then people are more likely to be charitable
- Example: if they see images of people starving for a charity campaign (using empirical
evidence to see that something is clearly wrong) then are more likely to donate money than if
they were just hearing about it from someone
For- why this doesn’t work
- Bradley is committing the naturalistic fallacy- stated by GE Moore
- Although we can have knowledge of ethical terms, they cannot be defined
- It is illogical to define non natural things with natural properties
- Hayward- ‘a term that is indefinable cannot be defines, and any attempt to define it is
fallacious”
So
- Ethical naturalism is not convincing as it fails to acknowledge the complexities of moral
language and cannot prove the meaning of good through naturalistic terms
