Assess whether or not ethical terms such as good, bad, right and wrong, have an objective factual basis that makes them true or false in describing something.

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

objective factual basis of moral language is cognitive approach

Question 2

paragraph 1- N

Answer 2

naturalism argues goodness natural property it’s a feature of physical world
-utilitarianism naturalism argues goodness= pleasure
-pleasure natural feature of natural creatures- e.g. brain chemicals
-goodness a natural property
-objective right or wrong answers to moral qs
-Hitler objectively wrong as caused more pain than pleasure
-since goodness=pleasure, action right if maximises pleasure then Hitler’s actions were wrong

Question 3

Paragraph 2- ‘naturalistic fallacy’

Answer 3

-G.E. Moore ‘naturalistic fallacy’
-fallacy is logical error resulting from an assumption or mistake in reasoning
-fallacy to assume something natural means its good
-simply diff statement
-no basis for thinking something being natural means its good

Question 4

P2- defence of naturalism

Answer 4

-inductive argument- premises only evidence for conclusions not logical proof
-fails at deduction as to being natural to find pleasure doesn’t prove pleasure is good
-if premise taken as inductive then not meant to prove or mean pleasure os good just evidence for pleasure being good then critique doesn’t apply

Question 5

response to defence of naturalism

Answer 5

-Hume proposes ethical language comes from ‘the heart’, not ‘the understanding’
-it expresses an ‘active feeling or sentiment’
-no objective basis for right/wrong, good/bad

Question 6

paragraph 3- E

Answer 6

-no objective basis
-ethical language just expressing emotions
-Ayer ‘boo-hurrah’ theory- if s/o says ‘stealing is wrong’ they’re saying ‘boo to stealing’. as if just had negative outburst ab stealing
-emotional outburst cannot be true or false bc not claims ab reality
-emotions cannot see true or false so ethical language cannot be analytic or emotionally verifiable so meaningless

Question 7

critique of emotivism

Answer 7

-trivialise ethical discussion- Philippa Foot concentration camps example suggests ethics debates shouldn’t be reduced to matter of opinion

Question 8

response to critique of emotivism

Answer 8

-recognises how emotion drives decisions more than reasons
-Daniel Goleman’s psych work into emotional part of brain kicks in before reasoning part
-no objective as subject to our emotions