Metaethics

Naturalism is the belief that all things are knowable using empirical evidence, as everything arises from natural causes. 

F.H Bradley was an advocate for ethical naturalism:

1)Ethical statements express propositions

2)Some such propositions are true

3)Such propositions are made true by objective world facts, independent of any human subjectivity. Suggests links between science and morality. 

Strengths: Based on what is natural-everyone can experience it, nature is universal so it supports arguments that morality is known equally as universally and presents a solid guideline. 

Weaknesses: regardless of whether a situation may have evidence that it is morally okay, it may not be legally okay, right and wrong are subjective, do moral/ethical statements have evidence? 

Overall, I disagree with ethical naturalism...

Non-naturalism is the belief that all things to do with meaning are knowable using intuition rather than empirical evidence. 

G.E Moore

Good cannot be defined. He compared it to defining colour. If we are asked to define the colour yellow, we have difficulty, as we can only define it through examples of the colour yellow. However, everyone has a sense of the colour yellow. Therefore, Moore believes the only way we can understand goodness is to provide an example to illustrate it. Moore believed that ethical language is made up of propositions that may be made true by objective features of the world, independent of human subjectivity. He didn't believe that goodness or badness could be natural properties, e.g. the roughness of a brick is empirically apparent, but the goodness of an action isn't able to be proven in the same manner. Therefore Moore rejects ethical naturalism because it teaches that moral terms and properties can be reduced to non moral properties. 

"If I am asked 'what is good?' my answer is that good is good and that is the end of the matter. Or 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 that." -Principa Ethica, Chapter 1. 

He developed Moore's ideas a little further and said that it wasnt only goodness which was indefinable, but the idea of obligation. In the same way that goodness is recognised by example, so are our obligations. We will always know when we ought to do a certain act. For Pritchard, intuitionism was the joining of reason and human intuition to help people decide what to do based on facts. Therefore we know what is right/good and also what we ought to do. He believed that everyone has different moral intuition, some more developed than others. In a situation where moral obligations clash he simply said examine the situation and choose the greater obligation. 

He built on Moore and Pritchard and agreed that 'good' and 'obligatory' are intrinsically indefinable. He believed that a set of basic moral principles are apparent, prima facie duties. Our moral obligations are apparent and must be followed unless a bigger obligation exists. He saw this as intuitionism at work, as our intution indentifies our prima facie duties and we then make our moral decisions based on this intuition that we have. Ross' approach tells us to obey the greater prima facie duty; however, he doesn't guide us as to what this greater one is. 

All meaningful statements must be either analytic or synthetic. He said that ethical and religious statements couldn't be verified so they aren't meaningful.

Ayer said that ethical statements can be problematic and therefore simply just an expression of emotion, His approach to ethical language is called emotivism, as everything said just expresses feelings of emotion. For emotivists, statements are presenting preferences and evincing emotions. In effect the statement 'theft is wrong' is a non-cognitive expression but it doesn't mean the same as 'i disapprove of theft', which is a cognitive expression. This is also called the 'boo-hurrah theory', as what we are saying iff we make starements about the morality and ethics of war is 'boo to war' or 'hurrah to war', and these aren't signifiant because they're simply envincing expressions of approval or disapproval. We dont need to feel the emotion expressed. 

Moral statements can simply express our opinion on something-no claims of truth in any of them. 

He looked at the emotive meanings of words and how they affect other people by their use. It is easy to use worlds like honesty in a descriptive sense, however it also has an emotive meaning that aims to influence other people. Stevenson believed that ethical statements are subjective opinions that are there to influence the views of others and to explicitly give approval or disapproval than give perspective 

Stevenson's approach gave more meaning to moral disagreements, as they were more than descriptive statements of emotions, they were aiming to express commands and to persuade others. This dealt with fundamental beliefs and principles and this is what ethical disagreementd are about. 

Moral statements were more than an expression of personal values or emotions, they were in fact suggesting that other people should apply the same values and follow the same course of action. He said that ethical language is intrinsically prescriptive and implies what ought to be done and that this is universal. In other words, everyone in the same position would be advised to take the same approach or course of action. 

Hare disagreed with subjective approaches to emotivism, as there was more to moral statements than expressing ideas or outlining behaviours. He saw statements as commanding behaviour and guiding actions because they prescribe attitudes, which can permit logical tests for consistenct. He saw the statements as imperatives that must be consistent with logic. 

Hare didn't see his approach as stating facts or something that is true or false; he saw prescriptivism as a way of expressing wishes and beliefs. In many ways these prescriptive statements are just like imperatives that are like imperatives or requests to be followed. 

'Murder is wrong' means 'you shouldn't murder and neither shall i'-prescriptivists believe in the idea of universability. 

If the meaning of ethical statements is soley based on empirical evidence and are the same as non-ethical statements, then they must stand up to scrutiny. However, they dont stand up to criticisms as they suggest that we know what is right based on what our sensory experience tells us, because they can be verified or falsified. 

Moore claimed that by classing ethical statements and non-ethical statements together, naturalism was guilty of commiting the naturalistic fallacy. He said that people cannot be talking about about facts and then switch to talking about moral values-is to ought. He based this on Hume's idea that it is illogical to derive is from ought because we end up ascrinbing natural properties to morality, which is fallacious. 

Non-naturalism doesn't seek to say that ethical statements aren't meaningful, it takes the approach that facts are not adequate in proving them true or false.

can intuitionism really provide a cognitivst answer that the meaning of language is knowable? Moore only stated that if you don't agree with him, you need to think more about it.

Is it really an ethical theory? If everything is all about how we feel or what our emotions dictate, then how can we know anything at all?

James rachels claims that ayer and stevenson are incorrect in removing the concept of reasoning from ethical judgements as there is so much more to statements than just expressions of feelings or desires. Moral judgements must appeal to reason otherwise they bome arbituary and pointless.

It seems that emotivism would claim that moral perspectives and statements about 9/11, for instance, would be reduced to subjectivity or meta-ethical statements. 

ayer does suggest that ethical statements are more than just expressions of feeling; he said thet they were 'expressing certain moral sentiments'. Therefore they can be made without the assertions that suggest approval of a specific action. 

allows complete freedom of action, everyone is valid, everyone can apply it, humans naturally express emotions, especially in moral circumstances.

moral judgements that are founded on prescriptions mean that thre is no valid reason why we should follow one persons prescriptions more than others

prescriptivism can justify any moral behaviour