Introduction
1. The question of whether ____ is part of the study of meta-ethics.
2. Meta-ethics is a non-normative branch of ethics, not concerned with the moral worth of
actions in situations but rather focusing on the meaning of ethical language.
3. Some philosophers think that ethical propositions can be objective ‘facts’ or ‘truths’, that
rape, for example, is objectively wrong. Statements that make truth claims about the world
are described as cognitive.
4. Other philosophers have argued that ethical statements are not verifiable and as such have
no truth value. These statements are therefore non-cognitive.
5. The claim that ____ is a cognitive/non-cognitive one which would be advocated by the
philosopher…
6. It will be my contention that…
Ethical Naturalism
- Naturalism is the view that ethical language contains epistemological propositions that are
either true or false.
- The truth value of ethical language is objective and independent of any human opinion. They
are absolute facts of the natural world and will not change depending on circumstance.
- Because good and bad are so apparent and observable in the world, naturalists claim that
ethical language can be defined using non-ethical language and reducible to a set of
verifiable features.
For example, hedonic naturalists like Bentham define ‘good’ as “the maximisation of pleasure and
diminution of pain” and Bentham provides the hedonic calculus as a method of verification.
Theological naturalists like Aquinas define ‘good’ as “fulfilling our telos to follow the will of God” and
he details the primary and secondary precepts as a method of verification.
- An immediate criticism of ethical naturalism is that naturalists all come to wholly different
ethical conclusions. They define good as “utility” and “duty” and “following the will of God”
and this disagreement suggests that the meaning of ethical language is not as objective and
factual as naturalists suggest.
David Hume observed that ethical naturalists conflate ‘is’ statements with ‘ought’ statements. The
two are not the same and yet naturalists use them interchangeably. Hume argues that this is a
fallacy as you can not go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ as it creates an entirely unjustified new
relationship between the words. If an action ‘is’ pleasurable, for example, there is no justification to
then say it ‘ought’ to be done.
GE Moore argued that giving ‘good’ a definition in non-ethical terms is the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ He
uses his ‘Open Question’ to show that defining ‘good’ cannot be done. Using a modern day example,
say you claim that providing pleasure for the majority of people is ‘good.’ Reality TV, statistically,
provides pleasure for the majority of people but then reality TV is not necessarily good. If the first
two propositions are true then the question of wether reality TV is good should be a closed question.
Moore highlights that no matter what definition for ‘good’ is used, any action or object that fulfils
this definition can still be questioned as to wether it actually is good. It remains an ‘open question’
which refutes the idea that you can ever define ethical language in non-ethical terms. Pleasure is
good but rape is not. Duty is good but putting your friend’s life in danger is not.
Intuitionism
1. The question of whether ____ is part of the study of meta-ethics.
2. Meta-ethics is a non-normative branch of ethics, not concerned with the moral worth of
actions in situations but rather focusing on the meaning of ethical language.
3. Some philosophers think that ethical propositions can be objective ‘facts’ or ‘truths’, that
rape, for example, is objectively wrong. Statements that make truth claims about the world
are described as cognitive.
4. Other philosophers have argued that ethical statements are not verifiable and as such have
no truth value. These statements are therefore non-cognitive.
5. The claim that ____ is a cognitive/non-cognitive one which would be advocated by the
philosopher…
6. It will be my contention that…
Ethical Naturalism
- Naturalism is the view that ethical language contains epistemological propositions that are
either true or false.
- The truth value of ethical language is objective and independent of any human opinion. They
are absolute facts of the natural world and will not change depending on circumstance.
- Because good and bad are so apparent and observable in the world, naturalists claim that
ethical language can be defined using non-ethical language and reducible to a set of
verifiable features.
For example, hedonic naturalists like Bentham define ‘good’ as “the maximisation of pleasure and
diminution of pain” and Bentham provides the hedonic calculus as a method of verification.
Theological naturalists like Aquinas define ‘good’ as “fulfilling our telos to follow the will of God” and
he details the primary and secondary precepts as a method of verification.
- An immediate criticism of ethical naturalism is that naturalists all come to wholly different
ethical conclusions. They define good as “utility” and “duty” and “following the will of God”
and this disagreement suggests that the meaning of ethical language is not as objective and
factual as naturalists suggest.
David Hume observed that ethical naturalists conflate ‘is’ statements with ‘ought’ statements. The
two are not the same and yet naturalists use them interchangeably. Hume argues that this is a
fallacy as you can not go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ as it creates an entirely unjustified new
relationship between the words. If an action ‘is’ pleasurable, for example, there is no justification to
then say it ‘ought’ to be done.
GE Moore argued that giving ‘good’ a definition in non-ethical terms is the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ He
uses his ‘Open Question’ to show that defining ‘good’ cannot be done. Using a modern day example,
say you claim that providing pleasure for the majority of people is ‘good.’ Reality TV, statistically,
provides pleasure for the majority of people but then reality TV is not necessarily good. If the first
two propositions are true then the question of wether reality TV is good should be a closed question.
Moore highlights that no matter what definition for ‘good’ is used, any action or object that fulfils
this definition can still be questioned as to wether it actually is good. It remains an ‘open question’
which refutes the idea that you can ever define ethical language in non-ethical terms. Pleasure is
good but rape is not. Duty is good but putting your friend’s life in danger is not.
Intuitionism
