1.1.2 Theological Naturalism - goodness is linked to
Gods will, which defines morality and things are
right or wrong dependant on what God commands
1.1.3 Hedonistic Naturalism - goodness is a fact of pleasure or
happiness. Good means being of favourable interest and
right means being conductive to harmonious happiness.
1.1.4 Attempts to link morals with scientific fact, ethics
can be explained using the same terms as science or
logic. Scene perceptions and logic are the only ways
to reach an ethical conclusion to an issue
188.8.131.52.1 believed a moral perspective is determined
upon self-realisation and from observing ones
own position in society.
184.108.40.206.1.1 He rejected hedonism as pleasure provides no self
realisation and Kants duty to duties sake does not
guide us in morality or give human satisfaction.
220.127.116.11.1.1.1 He therefore concluded that we must pursue self
realisation within our own community in order to provide
a satisfying life. In order to be a good person we must
know our position and duty in our society, it is all about
hard work and obedience.
18.104.22.168.2 tl:dr - Social
understandings can give
us moral goodness
22.214.171.124 tl:dr - good
is based on
126.96.36.199 argued against naturalism due to
188.8.131.52.1 Humes naturalist fallacy
184.108.40.206.1.1 It is illogically invalid to derive an ought statement from and is statment
220.127.116.11.1.1.1 Eg 'Euthanasia end suffering'
18.104.22.168.1.1.2 'Euthanasia should be legal'
22.214.171.124 Moore used what is described as the 'Open
126.96.36.199.1 If we claim that happiness is a naturally good thing we can always ask 'Is
happiness good?' but if happiness is naturally good this question makes
no more sense than 'Does happiness make people happy? 'Moving from a
factual objective statement to and ethical statement of value does not
work because it leave an open question that has not been answered.
1.2.1 Moore, Prichard, Ross
188.8.131.52 We cannot use our senses to tell what
is right or wrong, we just know though
our moral intuion
184.108.40.206.1.1 agreed with Moore and Prichard that 'right' and 'obligatory' are in
indefinable as 'good' but as a deontologist argued that it was
obvious that certain types of actions (prima facie duties) were right
220.127.116.11.2 tl:dr Basic
intuition tells us
what is good
18.104.22.168 called this simple notion
22.214.171.124.1 trying to define 'good' is like trying to
define the colour yellow, it can only be
explained though example
126.96.36.199.1.1 Moore, Princicpa Ethica
188.8.131.52.1.1.1 'We know what 'yellow' is and can recognise it
whenever it is seen but we cannot actually define
yellow. In the same way, we know what good is but
we cannot actually define it'
184.108.40.206.1.1.2 'everything is what it is and not another thing'
220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 good cant be identified with a metaphysical entity such as God,
22.214.171.124.1.2 moral judgements can never be proved empirically
126.96.36.199 develops Moore's ideas by stating we all recognise
goods properties and what we ought to do in certain
situations, making moral obligation obvious.
188.8.131.52.1 he believed there were two types of thinking
184.108.40.206.1.1.1 looks at the facts in the suituation
220.127.116.11.1.2.1 decided what to do
18.104.22.168.1.2.2 shows which particular action was right and
where our moral obligations lie
22.214.171.124.2 He recognised peoples morals were different and
said tis was because some people has developed
their moral thinking more than others
126.96.36.199.2.1 Where there is a conflict of obligation he says he
must look at the situation to decide which
obligation is greater. How we decide this is unclear
2.1.1 Ayer, Stevenson
2.1.2 Moral statements cannot be true or false but are
simply our expression of personal feeling
188.8.131.52 Hurray/Boo theory
184.108.40.206.1 Ayer stated 'If I say to someone 'You acted
wrongly in stealing that money,' I am not
saying anything more than you stole that
money.' I am simply evincing my moral
disprovement of it'
220.127.116.11.1.1 His Hurray/Boo theory sates that ethical/moral
statement are not verifiable, so are meaningless.
He believed they are simply an expression of
emotions and feelings in regard to a matter
18.104.22.168.1.1.1 eg in saying 'murder is wrong' we are saying 'boo to
murder' Words such was 'murder' or 'good' invoke an
immediate emotional response of positivity or negativity
22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 Drawing pin analogy
188.8.131.52 Stevenson developed Ayers ideas
on emotivism by discussing the
emotive meanings of words
184.108.40.206.1 Moral terms, such as 'honestly' respect' 'steal and 'murder' are both descriptive
and emotive. Expressing how we feel about them while describing them. When an
individual is making an ethical statement they're expressing their feelings while
also trying to influence others to believe the same.
220.127.116.11.1.1 Emotivism connects 'caring 'approving' 'disapproving' with the very
meaning of the ethical words. Ethical statements may be based on
our emotions, but this does not make them arbitrary - they are
based on our experience of the world and how we want it to be
18.104.22.168 tl:dr good is
2.1.3 Logical positivism
22.214.171.124 the theory that only statement that can be
tested by sense experience are meaningful
126.96.36.199 Analytical Statements
188.8.131.52.1 Apriori, 'All bachelors are unmarried men'
184.108.40.206 Synthetic statements
220.127.116.11.1 Aposteriori, 'It is raining outside'
18.104.22.168.1 any statement that is not analytic or
synthetic, statements of faith, religion,
morality, not true by definition or sense
perception, not a fact or knowledge.
2.2.2 Ethical statements prescribe what
ought to be done, universally
22.214.171.124 tl: dr Good is that
126.96.36.199 Hare believed moral statements were both prescriptive and universal. He
stated the only coherent way to behave morally was to act on judgements
you're prepared to universalise, moral statements have a prescriptive quality
because they command our behaviour guiding our actions.
188.8.131.52.1 He rejected the subjective idea of morality in emotivism and how it reduced moral statements to nothing more than ordinary statements
184.108.40.206.2 Hare believed reason has a role to play in moral statements, they
have a universal character surrounding them
220.127.116.11.2.1 If I say a thing is red I'm committed to the view
that anything like it in colour is also red.
Descriptive + Universal
18.104.22.168.2.2 The 'Golden Rule' states 'Do onto others as you would have done unto yourself'
22.214.171.124.2.2.1 Kant writes 'Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it should be a universal law'
126.96.36.199.2.3 When we use ‘good’ to mean ‘morally good’, we are appealing to a set of
standards that apply to someone as a person. If we say that an action is a
good action or a right action, we mean it is an action that complies with the
standards for how someone should act to be a good person
188.8.131.52.3 Moral statements have commanding meaning 'eating meat is wrong' is just the command 'Don't eat meat'