eta-ethics

ou will rememberthat meta-ethics was briefly examinedat the start ofyourAS course.is now timeto look atthis part of ethics in more detail. Meta-ethicsis not concernedvith particular moral theories, as normative ethics is, or how these theories can bepplied to ethicalissues.It is concerned with what we mean by morality. Meta-ethicsovers a variety of

Introduction

questions. Theyare:

What do we mean by ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?Do such concepts have an existence independent ofhuman feelings?Howis it possible to discover whether they do ornot?If they do, what do we mean by them?

oral philosophers answer these questionsin different ways. This depends on thesition they hold regarding the fundamental question: Whatis truth?

ilosophers argue even today about the nature of truth. How they answerthatestion affects the moral questions of meta-ethics. Some, as the writers of thespels did, believe that truth is God-given. There are, for them, absolute moralrms. Theologically these scholars are fideists; they believe by faith alone. Inrality, fideists follow the Divine Commandtheory.

hers reject this view and argue that truth lies in empirical data, in sensory‘ceptions. They take a naturalist position; the natural world is the source of allth. David Hume (1711-1776), the father of modern empiricism, argues that truth' in beliefs that human beings have about the natural world. However, thesest be verified through observation and experience of nature.erts that, through observation of nature, words like ‘good’ can be reduced tone fundamental value. As a result, utilitarians can reduce the word‘good’ to thedamentalvalue of pleasure orwelfare.

199

Key terms

epistemology—

the theory of

knowledge,

including

the origin of

knowledge,

the roles of

experience

andreason

in generating

knowledge and

thevalidity of

knowledge.

ethical

naturalism—

belief that moral

laws can be

verified through

observation

of the natural

world.

| AUnderstanding Religious Ethics

|

Others are not so sure. Realism and cognitivism hold that conceptslike ‘good’ and

Key terms ‘bad’ exist. Moral concepts are universal; sensory experiences can verify them but

|

| they cannot be reduced to a formula, such as Natural Law orthe greatest happiness of

| realism — the greatest number. Whatis ‘good’ just is. Humanintuition or experience discovers

beliefthat it. Realists believe that ethical facts exist. Cognitivists believe that ethical facts exist

| concepts have and can be known.

| a valuein and| ofthemselves, Since the nineteenth century some schools of thought have totally rejected the idea

| which E | that truth exists. In ethics, anti-realism and non-cognitivism take the view that

| independentof morality is a matter of personal feelings, opinions. The words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have

the human mind, no intrinsic value. It is up to the individual or groups of people to give meaning to

| I of opinions or of Such words.

| feelings.

| aa| cognitivism —

N thebelief that

‘moraltruths exist

andthat ethicalstatements

canbeverified

empirically.

| anti-realism-| rejection of

the ideathat|

| thingshave an| intrinsic value believe that moral concepts, such as right and wrong, actually exist and those who

independent of regard them as matters of opinion or feeling. This division is between cognitivism |

the humanmind. and non-cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that moral concepts are real things. Non-

| cognitivists argue that ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ havenoactual existence; they

| non-cognitivism Are matters of personal choice.

— thebeliefthai| moraltruths There is another way of looking at this divide. Non-cognitivists claim that ethical

concepts (such as good and bad) are simply subjective feelings or opinions. They

believe when you say ‘murder is bad’ you are expressing an opinion that killing

someoneis notintrinsically bad butit is disgusting to you. Therefore a non-cognitivist

would not be able to say that the statement ‘murderis bad’ is either true orfalse.

Onthe other hand, a cognitivist believes that moral concepts are real and as a result

would be able to say whetherthe statement ‘murderis bad’is true orfalse.

Since the ancient Greeks there has been a fundamental division between those who

||

|

| It is, hopefully, easy to see why non-cognitivists cannot say whethera thing is true orà c toe e 4 ee :

| _ » 4 false. For them, moralityis a matter of opinion. If things are matters of opinion, thenit‘7

l|

|

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

Non-cognitivists claim

that ethical statements

are simply subjective

feelings or opinions.

For a non-cognitivist,

when we say ‘murder

is bad’ we are

expressing an opinion

in the same way as if

we were to say ‘this

sunset is beautiful’.

is impossible to verify whetherthat opinionis true orfalse;it just is. Non-cognitivistsreject the idea that statements such as ‘Mother Teresa was a good person’, ‘The LakeDistrict is beautiful’ and even ‘That box is blue’ are true orfalse. All are matters ofopinion,of feelings. This is what philosopherscall a rejection of propositions.

The cognitivist, on the other hand, argues that such statements are propositions thatare based on empirical data. Moral, aesthetic and commonsense propositions arebased on empirical or sensory experiences. Theyare trueorfalse insofar as they canbe verified by empirical data. Non-cognitivists reject this link between empirical data

and proposition statements.

Key point

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism have their strengths and weaknesses. The mainstrength of cognitivism is that it takes seriously the existence of moral absolutes.It isargued that morality is too important to be regarded as simply a matter of personalopinion. It makes morality objective rather than subjective. The cognitivist goes on toassert that these moraltruths can be tested by humanreasonandlogic. Humanbeingsdo not simply observe the universe; their minds test their experiences. Cognitivistsargue that an important strengthof their thoughtis that moral claims canbetested.

Key terms

proposition —

a statement or

assertion that

expresses a

judgementor

opinion.

empirical —

based on

observation or

experience rather

than theory.

Sg

S_

°°

Understanding Religious Ethics

The non-cognitivist regards these strengths as fundamentally a misunderstanding of

ethics. Moral statements are not objectively real. The claim that ‘murderis wrong’ is

fundamentally different from the statementthat ‘Londonis the capital of the United

Kingdom’. Thelatter is a matteroffact; the formeris a matter of opinion. To denythis

difference is regarded by non-cognitivists as the fundamental flaw of the cognitivist

position. Non-cognitivists go on to argue that this fundamental flaw undermines

the other supposed strengths of cognitivism. Opinions cannot be logically tested or

subject to empirical research. They are simply matters of personal choice. The non-

cognitivist argues that this does not devalue moral statements. It simply recognizes

that subjective opinions are valuable in themselves. Non-cognitivists argue that the

statement ‘murder is wrong’ is not devaluedjust becauseit is an opinion.It is much

more likely to be devalued by the assertion thatit is an objective truth, which cannot

be proven one way or another.

Fromthiscriticism of the cognitivist approach, non-cognitivists claim that the primary

strength oftheir position is that it accepts the world asit is. Morality is simply a matter

of personal choice, which society then formulates into lawsfor the bettermentof the

majority’s personal preferences. This reveals anotherstrength in the non-cognitivist

approach. Non-cognitivism is not a rigid dogma. It allows for moral flexibility as

opinions develop and change. Yet this flexibility is not withoutits critics. Cognitivists

argue thatflexibility is in reality a chaotic state in whichtruths do not exist and where

moral absolutes change from day to day.

Ifa naturalist view of meta-ethics is taken, it might support normative ethical theories

suchas Natural Lawtheory orUtilitarianism. Bothare differentyet they start from the

same assumptions.Thefirst premise is that moral laws exist. The next is that they can

only be experienced and understood through an analysis of (a) the natural world or

(b) human nature.

A naturalist view of ethics argues that, once verified by nature, moral statements are

objectively true. Fora utilitarian, the statement ‘murderis wrong’ is true because the

person killed is harmed and this prevents his or her happiness. In Natural Law the

statement ‘murder is wrong’is true for different reasons, that is, because it prevents

the natural fulfilment of the individual. For Hume the statement ‘murderis wrong’ is

true since self-preservationis a central feature of humannature.In all cases the moral

proposition ‘murder is wrong’is non-negotiable. It is a universal moral law, subject only to whatis meant bythe word‘murder’. Next, nature reveals whyit is a moral law.

Principles, such as ‘murderis wrong’, are tested against these laws.

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

Both cognitivists and non-cognitivists oppose ethical naturalism. Non-cognitivists

argue that moral propositions do notactually exist. They use the naturalistic fallacy(which originated from Hume) to attack his own naturalism. Humesaid that it was

illogical to go from saying how something‘is’ to saying how something ‘ought’ to be.

Yet Humeis inconsistent. He affirms that human nature (whatis) is the only basis for

morality (what oughtto be). As a result, it is claimed, he is guilty of the naturalistic

fallacy. He has made the assumptionthat humannatureis the basis for moral decision-

making.

Non-cognitivists assert that it is not possible to draw moral laws from human nature

or the way the universe works, since moral laws are concepts whereas the universe isphysical. Strong cognitivists have concerns about the reductionismof naturalism. The

strong cognitivist believes that moral propositions do exist, but argues thatit is not

possible to reduce the concept of goodto a simplelaw, be that the Hedonic Calculusor Natural Law. Strong cognitivists reject the claim that there is a single, empirical

basis to morality.

Ethical intuitionism is an absolutist andstrong realist moral theory. This approachto

ethics wasfirst put forwardin the early twentieth century by the English philosophers

W.D. Ross (1877-1971) and G.E. Moore (1873-1958). Intuitionists believe that moral

norms have an objective existence that is independent of humanexperience. Morality

is intuitive. Moore, writing in his Principia Ethica, sumsit up this way:

We know what yellowis and can recognise it wheneverit is seen, but we cannot

actually define yellow. In the same way we know what good is. But that we

cannotactuallydefine it. . .(G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica, Cambridge University

Press, 1903)

According to intuitionism, when we say something is ‘good’ or‘bad’ we are referring

to properties that we cannot define. However, we intuitively know what they mean.

In the same way you do not have to experience a killing to knowthat ‘murderiswrong’. Nor are moral normsa result of the analysis of actual events. A moral norm,

such as ‘youshall not kill’, is determined without reference to any murders. It is

a matter ofbelief, which is then rationally analysed. The starting point is the self-

evident nature of moral truths.

Key terms

naturalistic

fallacy —the ideathat just

because nature

acts in acertain

way it does not

followthat this

is howthings

oughtto be.

intuitionism —

belief that ethical

propositions

are true orfalse

andknownbyintuition.

G.E. Moore argued

that we know

this buttercup is

yellow because we

recognize the colour

yellow when we

see it, even though

we cannot define

what ‘yellow’ is.

In the same way,

he argued, we

recognize goodness

whenwesee it.

Understanding Religious Ethics

According to ethical naturalism, the statement ‘murder is bad’ can be verified

by observing the act of murder and its consequences. For intuitionism, no such

analysis is needed; we know murderis bad through ourintuition.

To think about

Do humanbeings have an innate sense ofwhatis right and wrong?

Intuitionists believe that there are foundational moral principles, from which moral

laws develop. Rosscalled these foundational principles prima facie, meaning that on

the face ofit they are self-evidently true. The foundationalprinciplesare listedas:

1. beneficence (being generous or goodto others)

2. faithfulness in relationships

3. gratitude for favours done to you

4. justice

5. non-maleficence (not being hurtful to others)

6. promise-keeping

7. self-improvement.

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

How is it possible to discover what these core values are? The intuitionist arguesthat they are self-evident. Those opposed to the theory, however, dispute whetherhumanbeings have certain innate moral values. A recent academic study in the UKdemonstrated, for example, that the legal belief in a jury having a broadly similarunderstanding of the moral concept of honesty mightbe far from true. Amongthosequestionedless than half thoughtit dishonestfor a carer to persuade an old personto changehis or her will in favourofthe carer. Perhapsthere are no intrinsic moralvalues?

It can be arguedthat strengthsofthe intuitionist approachare:

1. Intuitionism is non-naturalistic. Morality is not dependenton the material world.Ethical principles are independentofactual events. One benefitofthis separation ofthe natural world from morality is that this theory is not guilty of the naturalisticfallacy. ,

2. It explains whydifferent societies share moral values, such as ‘murder is wrong’.3. It does justice to the fact that human beings have an innate moralsense, quite

independentof personal experience orcircumstance.4. It does not require a God as the source of absoluteethical principles.

Variouscriticisms of the intuitionist approach have been made. Theyare:

1. How do we know that wecan trust our intuition? Two people faced with thesame moraldilemmacould have differing intuitions about what to do. How couldwe decide which intuition is correct?

2. Thereis no link in intuitionism between whatis right and whata person oughtto do. The philosopher, J.L. Mackie (1917-1981), saw this as an importantcriticism.He arguesthat morality is not just about what a personbelieves intuitively is rightbutit is about doing something aboutit. Intuitionism states what the foundationalprinciples are but does not expect the moral agent to follow theseethical values.

mn

Key terms

logical

positivism —the belief

that the onlymeaningful

philosophical

problems are

thosewhichcan

be solvedby

logical analysis.

verificationprinciple —

statementsare

onlyvalidif theycanbe verified

ordeduced from

empirical data.

Understanding Religious Ethics

3. Intuitionists do not explain why intuition is universally applicable to ethics.

It is arguedthatthere is no intrinsic reason why humanintuition should be taken

as the basis of moral judgements. People have intuitions that it will rain tomorrow

but the weather forecast is not based on these intuitions. There are other human

instincts that are as commonas an intuitive sense of right or wrong. A feeling of

pain or pleasure is an example, as is the guilt complex. Many scholars argue that

Moore never adequately explained why one particular human experience should

form the sole basis for morality.

4. Moral intuitionists do mot take seriously the differences in morality that exist

from one society to another. It could be argued that ourintuitions are learnt from

the cultures that we live in, so our intuitions woulddiffer from society to society.

Emotivism is a non-cognitive ethical theory. It developedoutofthe logical positivism

that developed in Vienna in the early years of the twentieth century. A group of

philosophers,scientists and mathematicians, knownas the Vienna Circle, developed

a new philosophy. They rejected the absolutism and naturalism of the past and built

on the foundations of empiricism. From 1922 until 1938 the Vienna Circle brought

about a revolution in philosophy in the same way as expressionism, in the samecity,

was doing in art. The most important members of the movement were Rudolf Carnap

(1891-1970) and Moritz Schlick (1882-1936). Loosely attached to the Circle were

a numberof foreign philosophers. These included the British philosopher Ludwig

Wittgenstein and later AJ. Ayer.

Logical positivists believed that the only absolute truths were based on science.

Philosophy had to becomescientific rather than romantic. This was accompanied

by an interest in the minutiae of language; the importance of philosophy wasinits

ability to analyse words and argumentslogically. The Vienna Circle regardedits job

as the analysis of words, sentences and arguments to create philosophy for the age

of science and technology. Sentences convey information. This information needs

to be analysed and verified otherwise discussion becomes meaningless. Statements,

propositions, have to be based onfactual information. They also haveto be logically

coherent. The logical positivists believed that without these two principles any

statement wasnot only wrong;it was also meaningless.

Thelogical positivists therefore created a system that evaluated statements. This was

their verification principle. For statements to be true they hadeitherto be analytic or

206

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

synthetic in nature. In an analytic statement we can logically deduce from the wordsif it is true. A synthetic statementis onethat can be verified by analysingfacts.

f Leibniz sp oftruthsofreason an iths of fact. By tlmeantthat sometruths could be logically deduced from the very word (truths ofreason), whileothers are deduced through sensory experiences(truthsoffact).

An analytic statement,as the term suggests, does not need to be proved throughexperience. We can logically deduce from the wordsin the sentencethatit is true.Analytic statements can be mathematical statements or simple syllogisms. Hereis an example of a simple syllogism.

All bachelors (a) are single men (b).

This statement cannot be false since the meaningof(a) is explained by (b).

A synthetic statementis one that can be verified from analysing facts, for example‘Johnis a bachelor’.

Ifwe are certain that both these analytic and synthetic statementsare true, we canmake the following statements:

All bachelors are single men.

John is a bachelor.

ThereforeJohnis single.

Sinceit can be verified that John exists and thatthis particular Johnis a bachelor,it has to be true that heis single.

The logical positivists then analysed religious and moral language. They reached theconclusion that talk of God and goodness could not be verified, and therefore ethicalStatements are meaningless. Carnap in The LogicalStructure of the World, attacked thePremise upon whichreligion and morality are based. Carnaprejected the idea that thereis a divide between body and soul, mind and matter, and(in morality) the divide betweenwhatis and what oughtto be.Life is physical; there is no place for the metaphysical.

The Vienna Circle knew it had no need of God butit was painfully aware that moralgoodnesscould notbe as easily removed. They tried but failed to undermine morality.Wittgenstein wasoneofthefirst to realize the legitimacy ofethical claims. Humanbeings

Keyterms

analytic

statement —

a statement that

only requires the

words within it

to verify whether

itis true orfalse.

Forexample,

‘all bachelors

are single

men’ requires

simply anunderstanding

of the meaning

ofthe word

bachelor to verify

thestatement.

synthetic

statement -astatementthat

requires external

information,

usually empirical

data, to verify

whetherit is

true or false. For

example, ‘the

Battle of Hastings

took place in

1066’ requires

empirical

information from |

contemporary

documentsand

archaeological”evidence to verifythe statement.

Understanding Religious Ethics

need morals yet they are unverifiable. A moral

system has to exist but this creates an apparent

contradiction. Morality is necessary but it is not

verifiable.Ludwig Wittgenstein

(1889-1951)

was one of the

leadingproponents

of linguistic

philosophy. He was

an associate of

the Vienna Circle.

Helater rejected

the simplicity of

the Vienna Circle’s

dismissal ofethical

and religious

Sir Alfred Ayer

Sir Alfred Ayer’s (1910-1989) solution to the

problem of the unverifiable nature of moral

language is known as emotivism. It is sometimes

called the Hurrah-Boo theory since it argues

that morals are determined by people’s feelings

and opinions. Ayer said that when we use ethical

language weare expressing our emotions about an

issue. So when we say something is morally good

language. weare saying ‘hurrah’to it. Similarly when we say

something is wrong weare saying ‘boo’toit.

ForAyer, the claim ‘murderis wrong’ is not based on some objective moral absolute

Key term orprinciple. We are simply saying ‘I don’t like murder’, or when applied to the wider

community, ‘if murder became legal then I believe society would not survive’. The

emotivism— statement ‘murderis wrong’, Ayer argues, cannot be reduced to either an analytic

ike idea or synthetic statement. Thereforeit is not possible to justify the view that murderis

that moral either right or wrong.All the individual can say is that he or she does not like murder.

judgements are Simply put: ‘murderstinks!’

expressions ofthe moral agents Ayer develops this idea in Language, Truth and Logic. Here he argues that ethical

feelings rather statements are designed to get a response from the reader or hearer. He calls these

than statements responses:

of fact.. . ejaculations or commands which are designed toprovokethe readerto action

of a certain sort. (AJ. Ayer, ‘A Critique of Ethics’, Ethical Theory, Russ Shafer-

Landau (Ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2007)

Ayer's ideas are based onlogical positivism. Herejects the idea that ethical statements

have any objective meaning, as they are unverifiable. Yet, during World WarII, Ayer

began to have doubts aboutthe unverifiable nature of ethical statements. In 1946 he

_ completed a new edition of Language, Truth andLogic. This edition included a long

appendix that went back on someofhis earlier claims. Importantly, Ayer claimed that

manyethical statements contain elementsoffact. As a result, some ethical statements

are descriptive andtherefore verifiable while others are not. The statement‘stealing

is wrong’ is a matter of opinion and therefore non-verifiable. On the other hand, a

| statementsuch as‘you know that whenyoustole from that person you did wrong’is

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

capable ofverification through the experience of the person whostole. This subtle yetimportantdifference in Ayer’s thoughtallowed him to maintain his emotivist ethicalposition while, at the same time, accepting that there are facts in ethics. Ayer (likeWittgenstein and Hare) had experienced the enormity of the evils of World War uand wanted, therefore, to give more authority to ethical statements.

Charles L. Stevenson

In his book Ethics and Language the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson(1908-1979) agrees with Ayer that ethical statements express an emotional response.He arguesthatit is possible for peopleto differ in the way they respond, even thoughthey have the same end in mind. This can beillustrated. Two people hold similarviews about whethera waris tight or wrong. They do so onthe basis of a gut reactionto the events. Yet they have radically different methodsfor ending the conflict. Onewants the troops to be withdrawn immediately while the other argues for a plannedwithdrawal. Ayer’s views begin and end with an expression of revulsion. Stevensonbelievesit is necessary to go further.

Stevenson’s views allow emotivism to move beyond a mere shouting match ofOpinions, which he argues is precisely what Ayer's philosophy involves. Thischange allows Stevenson to analyse ethical propositions in a way that Ayer doesnot. Stevenson also believes that ethical statements contain elements of persuasion,They do not simply reflect a person's feelings. They also present a moral claim.When a person says “murderis wrong’they do not just mean ‘murderstinks’. Theyalso imply that the person to whom you are speaking should feel that it is wrongas well. Moral statements do not only expressfeelings of pleasure or outrage. Theyalso expect the recipient of the statementto share those feelings.

Strengths and weaknesses of emotivism

Emotivism is not withoutits strengths and weaknesses. The strengthsarethatit:

1. accepts the importance of the scientific approach to language. Words haveParticular meanings. In order to understand them they have empirically to be verified,It rejects therefore the abstract use of wordsofprevious philosophical discussion.

Understanding Religious Ethics

2. allows the development of a complex and sophisticated discussion of moral

language.This is demonstrated by the analysis of the statement ‘murderis wrong’.

It prevents ethicists regarding such statementsas self-evidently true.

3. assumesthat ethical statements are not the same as empirically verifiable

facts, which seems to manyto beself-evident.

4. stresses the importance of each individual’s moralfeelings.

However, there are problemsassociated with emotivism:

1. Ethical statements are not judged on the basis of the emotional response they

invoke in the hearer. They are judged on the claims they make. Therefore, as

the British philosopher G.J. Warnock (1923-1995) points out, to claim ‘murderis

wrong’is to make a factual statement which can be discussed and debated.If this

were notthe case then as emotions changed so would morality, causing an extreme

form of relativism and subjectivism.

2. The fact that moral statements often carry a tremendous weight of public and

private emotions does not meanthat these are moral.It is possible to feel oneis

right about something and yet be considered to be very wrong.

3. Just because you may have an emotion that something is wrong doesnotlogically

mean that other people should agree. There is a disconnection between,for

example, the statement that ‘murder is wrong’ and the implicit conclusion that

other people should notdoit. Schlick saw this disconnection even before Ayer had

completed his book.

4.It could be argued that language is not simply aboutverifiability. Sentences

should not be seen as the linguistic equivalent of arithmetical sums. Language is

muchricher and much more opaque thanscientific experiments or mathematical

numbers.

Richard Hare was one -of the most original moral philosophers of the twentieth

century. He moved beyondthe ideathat ethical statements are merely expressions of

ourfeelings, to say that moral language is prescriptive and tells us how we oughtto

act.

He developed an ethical theory knownasprescriptivism.It is an ethical system that

prescribes what a person should do and,like a doctor’s prescription,it will vary from

person to person. Consequently, when a personsays‘Youshall not murder’this is not

just an expression of personal revulsion at the thoughtofkilling. It also means that

everyone should follow this moral truth. This is the universalizability principle,

that when an individual prefers one thing rather than something else this implies

EA

Chapter 10: Meta-ethics

that this preference would be good for anybody. If x prefers to care fora sick person

rather than go to the pub,this implies that were x to be sick then he or she would

wish someoneto care for x in similar circumstances.

E Sana POS Fetent a

Hare makes the Golden Rule of Christianity: ‘In everything do to others as youwould have them do to you’ (Matthew 7:12) the basis of his prescriptivism. Heargues that if such moral preferences are universal it follows that they shouldbe obeyed. Yet Hare concedes that not everyone has thecritical ability or timeto calculate what he or she should do in a particular situation. Some humanbeings need morallaws to guide them. They havelimited critical powers to turnpreferences into actions. Those with morecritical powers can use moral laws asrules of thumb,to be used or not used in accordance with theircritical appraisalof moral preferences.

Hare had good reasonsto believe in the universal nature of morals. He servedin the army during World War II and spent three years as a prisoner of war inChangi prison and building the Burma-Thailandrailway. The brutality ofJ apanesetreatmentofprisoners ofwaraffected his attitude to morality. It was this experiencethat led him to develop a secularform of the Christian Golden Rule.

Prescriptivism asserts four basic ideas. They are:

1. that moral sentimentis not sufficient. The individual's morality must involve doingwhatis morally required.

2. that ethical action has to be consistent.It is importantinall situations to practise aconsistent morality.

3. that moralbelief must be kept in harmonywith others.

4. that the moral agent cannotbe hypocritical.

According to emotivism, when we would say ‘murder is bad’ we are expressingour feelings towards murder. According to prescriptivism, this statementis tellingus how we oughtto act.

a)

Understanding Religious Ethics |

Prescriptivism adds an appealing dimension to the idea that ethical statements are

expressions of opinion by saying that they also give directions as to how we ought

to act. Hare states that ethical statements are universalizable; however, this does

not mean that they are objective. There is no way to judge whether one person's

preferences should be followed over another person's. There is nothing to stop us

changing our preferences.

Practice exam question

‘Ethicists mean different things when they use the term ‘good’.’ Discuss.

A2 questionsarenotsplit into (a) and (b) type questions. You will need to demonstrate

both your knowledge of a subject and your evaluative skills in a single, in-depth

| response.

| This essay allows a wide-ranging examination of the various meta-ethical positions.

You could start by stating that thereis a difference between those theories that regard

| terms such as ‘good’ as objectively true and those that do not. Once you have done

| this you could examine the way in which the term is employed by a whole variety

| of different theories from cognitivist and anti-cognitivist positions. You may wish

| to look at what the word means by focusing on a particular statement, such as

‘generosity is good’. Focusing on a particular statement will lead you to examine a

variety ofdifferent interpretationsofthe term ‘good’, such as naturalism, emotivism

and intuitionism. You could evaluate the extent to which the statementis true. You

could mention any commonfactorsas well as differences of meaning.