Is the meaning of the word '' good'' the defining question in the study of ethics ?

A3

MORAL STATEMENTS ARE NON-COGNITIVE EVINCES OF PREFERENCE/ ATTITUDES • A.J. Ayer, in 'Language, Truth and Logic' explained that putative propositions can only be literally meaningful once they have been analytically or empirically verified (or falsified): Ayer developed the principle of weak verification, which claimed that statements could be verified if one is able to state what evidence would make the sentence probable • He claimed moral statements were neither analytic or provable by the senses, and were therefore factually meaningless non-cognitive

A2

MORALITY DERIVED FROM NATURAL PROPERTIES • Ethical Naturalism is a meta-ethical doctrine, which maintains moral truths can be empirically discovered via observation of the world. It is a moral realist theory (insofar as it believes moral facts exist) and is thus cognitive (as moral statements can be judged true or false). o Aquinas' Natural Law is a form of theological naturalism - one can understand the moral standard (set by God's Eternal Law) through observation of the natural world/ order (Natural Law) WITHOUT A MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE AS THERE COULD BE NO JUSTIFIED LAWS

CA 2

NO UNDERLYING TRUTHS, JUST EXPRESSING PREFERENCES • Is Ought Problem - Hume contends absolute wrongness or rightness cannot be deduced from experience or observation there are no metaphysical truths or supernatural properties, there is no objective meaning • It seems evident that when people describe something as good, bad, right or wrong, they are expressing an attitude towards something. By viewing moral statements in this way, there is not unexplainable metaphysical phenomena such as "intuition" or a "divine law"

cr 1

Nietzschean criticism however seems to prevent all meaningful discussion,• If no terms can be proved or disproved, as they are merely a matter of expression, there could be no meaningful debate about ethics. In exactly the same way that atheism, theism and agnosticism were meaningless to logical positivists, the meta-ethical debate or relativity or absoluteness is non-sensical. Furthermore, this contradicts our own understanding of use of ethical terminology. Ethical terms or beliefs are clearly not beyond reason, as we have reasons for our beliefs, based on experience.

R 3

DOES NOT RENDER ETHICS MEANINGLESS - MORAL PROOF IS DIFFERENT FROM SCIENTIFIC PROOF • Although Ayer's emotivism sets the bar too high by arguing that because I cannot prove something it becomes meaningless, one can argue that whilst moral statements clearly express preference they can be validated through reasoning and experience (as opposed to scientific or factual proof). • For example, although I cannot prove paedophilia is wrong, I can give reasons for why it is wrong e.g. damaging psychological effects, abuse, violation of human rights • Karol Wojtyla, in 'The Acting Person', highlights that ethical demands and stances grow out of human encounter - it is through encountering good, bad, needs, desires that we uncover a sense or morality and the need to be moral ethical statements do not require logical or scientific justification, but instead experience of being human and living • THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT BUT DOES NOT HAVE ONE SIMPLE ANSWER

R 2

EMOTIVISM TRIVIALISES ETHICS, DEFIES THE LAW • Mel Thompson has argued "you cannot reduce morality to a set of cheers and boos"; if morality is not more than personal opinion, then laws such as "do no murder" seem to be no more important than someone claiming "I don't like red sweets". MacIntrye argues emotivism places child carers and paedophiles as equals CLEARLY THE QUESITON OF WHAT "GOOD" MEANS IS INTEGRAL FOR FUNCTIONING SOCIETIES

LOA 2

Furthermore, it may be important to consider that if an objective meaning of "good" cannot be established, arguably all moral acts would be considered equal and thus societies would collapse, as laws would become meaningless. Thus not only does the question of moral truths have a theoretical importance (effecting normative ethical discussion), but also perhaps a practical one (impacting on applied ethical issues).

A1

The importance of the word good would be emphasized from those who assert that morality must be cogntive and intuitively known. Whilst maintaining morality is cognitive, intuitionism asserts that moral facts are not to be discovered, but rather are self-evident and known intuitively. "If I am asked 'How is good to be defined?' my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it" (G.E. Moore 'Principia Ethica') Moore likened good to the colour yellow - we only demonstrate our knowledge by pointing to the colour yellow; it can be shown and known, yet not defined seems true that people have an intuitive sense of morality Bertrand Russell, in 'The Problems of Philosophy' argues perception of good is a priori, "the truth of such knowledge can neither be proved no disproved by experience"

LOA1

There are those who would argue that the meaning of "good" is certainly the defining question in the study of ethics, as without a cognitive moral-realist understanding, it may seem impossible for ethical discussion to take place

R 1

This effectively means that ethical terms like good, is not derived from intuition but from experience. The phenomenon of intuition does not seem to be sufficiently explained and the idea of knowledge detached from experience or the senses may be puzzling to some, much like Plato's concept of innate knowledge of the forms G.J. Warnock used to argue intuitionism was simply a sense of bewilderment got up to look like a theory MEANING CANNOT COME FROM INTUITION

LOA 3

Yet despite the clear significance of meaning of ethical terms, it must ultimately be argued that words such as "good" cannot be simply explained, thus absolute moral meanings cannot be deduced so easily. Ultimately, ethical statements are merely subjective expressions of feelings, and unlike analytic or synthetic statements, they lack objective meaning. Nonetheless, to claim ethical statements are non-cognitive is not to claim they lack significant meaning to cultures or social groups. So while the meaning of the word "good" is perhaps the defining question, there is no one definite answer.

CA 1

Yet how can morality be cognitive and intuitive, if many have different intuitive understandings of good and bad Nietzsche 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 SUGGESTS GOOD HAS NO ONE MEANING, POINTS TO THE EMOTIVIST UNDERSTANDING THAT GOOD IS AN EXPRESSION OF PREFERENCE, THUS ARGUABLY FACTUALLY MEANINGLESS Why would this, therefore, be made to be the defining question in the study of ethics.