Ethical Language

1. The problem of the term ‘good’

2. The Naturalistic Fallacy
3. Intuitionism
4. Emotivism
 Analytic and Synthetic
• Analytic: • Synthetic:
– Statements are true by
definition – by analysing
the constituent parts we
know they are true.
They are analytical
statements e.g. 2+2 =4
– Most propositions of
logic or mathematics
are analytic.
– Observations about the
world. They can be
tested by our senses/
science.
– The truth is tested
against our experience
e.g. it is raining.
– All statements in science
are synthetic –
empirically verifiable.
 Meaningless statements
• Analytic and synthetic statements are both meaningful
because they can be verified.

• Meaningless statements include those about religion and

ethics.

• Religious belief and morals are not meaningful because they

cannot be verified – they aren’t true by definition and they
cannot be observed by sense perception.

• Ethics and theology are emotive because they deal with

issues rooted in feelings of approval, which cannot be
proved.
 The problem of the term ‘good’
Key Questions
• What is the meaning of moral terms or
judgements?
• What is the nature of moral judgements?
• How may moral judgements be supported or
defended?
• Can ethical language have any meaning?
• Are good and right the same thing?
• What is the difference between using the term
‘good’ in a moral or ethical sense?
 What is yellow?

The colour perceived when the

retina is stimulated by
electromagnetic radiation with
a wavelength of between 570
and 590 nanometres is yellow.
 The Scholars…
• G.E.Moore – Principia Ethica (1903) – good is simple and
indefinable, or complex, or is meaningless. Good as ‘conducive to
pleasure’ or a simple non-definable quality that certain things
exhibit? Role of the Naturalistic Fallacy in Moore’s ethical debate –
fact and value have to remain distinct from one another. Defining
‘good’ is the same as defining the colour ‘yellow’.

• Aristotle – highest good towards which all persons aim (achieving

telos [purpose]). Aristotle believed that ‘good’ was anything that
fulfilled its purpose, e.g. a knife is designed to cut things; a ‘good’
knife is one that cuts easily etc. Teleological approach because it
looks to the end or purpose of an act.
Good = eudaimonia…intellectual rather than egotistical.

• Plato – theory of the Forms – the highest good

 More scholars…
• Theologians – Teilhard de Chardin, Lewis, Tillich – God = Good and is the ‘ultimate concern’

• Hume's basic argument in terms of ethics is that if we are to discuss moral behaviour then
morality needs a secure basis on which to proceed from. Hume states that statements about
what 'ought, or ought not' be done are actually based on feelings, not reason.

• Geach – good is a ‘logically attributive adjective’ – the word constructs a new meaning to
something it is added to.

• Hare – functionality of ‘good’ – can infer criteria from a functional noun and a good (functional
noun) fulfils the qualities associated with it (commendable)

• SA Burns – identifies 36 types of good but holds that only one is of use in philosophical
discourse: ‘of moral excellence; upright’.

• Aquinas – analogy of attribution and proportion. View of ethical language held by the Catholic
Church as expressed in Natural Moral Law. In simple terms the description of the way things
are in the world is the way things ought to be. In other words, is implies ought.

• Kant – Summum Bonum and the postulation of God’s existence. A deontological approach to
ethical language, such as Kant’s suggests that morality is derived from a set of duties.
 The Naturalistic Fallacy
– making an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’
• GE Moore claimed that the NF occurred
whenever someone tried to prove a claim about
ethics through the use of the term ‘good’.
• Hume observes that there is nothing in a
descriptive statement that allows us to go from
what people believe do to what they ought to do.
• Hume’s Fork is the observation that statements
are divided up into two types:
– Statements about ideas - these are analytic, necessary
statements that are knowable a priori.
– Statements about the world - these are synthetic,
contingent, and knowable a posteriori.
 NF
• To say that something is good, and therefore it is a moral
action that all should perform, is unconvincing to many.
• This simple example highlight the issue that there can be
no simple transition from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’:
– ‘It is good to give money to charity’ (descriptive)
– ‘You ought to give money to charity’ (prescriptive)

Leads on to the following:

• Why is giving money to charity good?
• If it is to help the deserving poor, how do we know if they are
deserving?
• Is it still good if I have no money to give?
• Is giving to charity the only intrinsically good action?
• Does it mean that I am a bad person if I do not give to charity?
 GE Moore’s Open Question
Argument
• A statement such as ‘anything which
brings happiness is good’ leads to the
question ‘is it good that X leads to
happiness?’
• This is an open ended question because
the answer is ‘maybe yes, maybe no’,
hence it does not increase our moral
knowledge about X or happiness.
 Intuitionism
• A theory that grew in strength between the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Concerned with self-
evidential principles (duty as non-derivative and not relying on anything else).

• F.H.Bradley - Moral obligation discoverable from society and is called the ‘concrete universal’.
Moral activity means finding your niche and carrying out your duties (social Contractualism)

• H.A.Prichard – held the view that there were two forms of thinking: general (1) and moral
thinking (2). When moral decisions are made related to the situation at hand and referred to
intuition, not reason – indication of the right thing to do.

• W.D.Ross - Condition under which a moral decision can be described as right = an act which the
agent thinks is right in the situation that the agent thinks it is. This is a subjective evaluation of a
situation which leads to a direct form of individual intuition to access right conduct. He argued
that moral principles can’t be absolute, as they can contradict one another   He said that we have
prima facie duties. Intuition identifies our prima facie duties, but when they conflict, we need to
use our own judgment to determine which obligation is our absolute duty.

• Hume rejected naturalism and believed that sentiment was the source of right and wrong.

• Ayer argued that meaningful statements had to be verified either synthetically or analytically.

• GE Moore said that ‘good’ is indefinable. In the same way as yellow is just yellow, ‘good’ is not a
complex term that can be broken down further, you just recognise that something is good by
intuition.
 Intuitionism Quotations…
“I have said that the primary function of the word ‘good’ is to commend. We have,
therefore, to enquire what the commending is.” (RM Hare, The Language of Morals, 1952)

‘I have often observed, when it has been a question of choosing between virtues and vices,
that [my inclinations] have led me no less to evil than to good; this is why I have no
grounds for following them in matters regarding truth and error’. (Descartes)

“I am not making any factual statement. I am merely expressing certain moral statements.
The man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely expressing his moral.” (AJ Ayer,
.
Language, Truth and Logic, 1936)

“For the emotivist, morality is a matter of the expression of feeling and the encouragement
to others to feel the same”. (D Cook, The Moral Maze)

“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 defined?’ my answer is that it cannot be defined.”
(GE Moore, Principa Ethica, 1903).
 Intuitionism Evaluation
Strengths:
• Allows for objective moral values.
• By interpreting choices through a moral
sense, one does not have to specify
why they are wrong.
• Allows for moral duties and obligations
and so satisfies the moral absolutist.
• Points to a common consensus of
moral issues. May be linked to
conscience as a moral guide.
• Cannot have more precision in ethics
than the subject is capable of, therefore
intuitionism is acceptable.
• Though considered anti-theoretical,
Intuitionism does the best it can given
the unrealistic demands placed on
ethical systems.
• Refusal to provide a detailed ethical
theory is really down to scepticism on
behalf of the inability of a moral theory
to perform such a task.
Weaknesses:
• People’s intuition and reason can lead to many
different conclusions.
• How can we be sure that our intuitions are right?
Is it reliable?
• Hume argues that humans have a motivation for
acting in a certain way.
• Unsystematic (duties with no underlying
rationale)
• Fails to actually deliver anything concrete
• Nothing helpful to say about resolution of a moral
conflict
• Unable to explain moral knowledge
• No explanation why we care about morality
• What happens if people intuit from the same
event and reach different conclusions?
• Intuited knowledge owes more to social
background that any firm basis for morality
(Bradley)
• Logical positivism dismisses intuition as
meaningless as it cannot be empirically tested.
• ‘goodness’ is non –verifiable
• However, it is better than Emotivism, as it
attempts to talk of moral (God-like) awareness
rather than simple subjective feeling.
 Emotivism
• Ayer – analytic and synthetic statements. Anything that cannot be verified through experience
or logical analysis is deemed meaningless – therefore Log. Positivism was a direct challenge to
the existence of God. Knowledge is justified if, 'first that what one is said to know be true,
secondly that one can be sure of it, and thirdly that one should have the right to be sure'.

• Stephenson – moral statements tell us what we should approve of, or otherwise, in a personal
subjective way. ‘Good’ and ‘right’ as persuasive definitions appealing to coerce people into
understand and accepting another’ point of view. Stevenson said the purpose of a moral
statement was to persuade someone of the rightness or wrongness of an action. ‘Good’ is a
persuasive definition. He said that when we talk about moral issues, we express approval or
disapproval. Unlike Ayer, he said moral statements were not merely expressions of emotion,
but were based on deeply held beliefs. This gives a better explanation of why people disagree
strongly about morality – their ideas are based on fundamental social, political or religious
beliefs. However, Stevenson is an Emotivist because he believes moral statements are the
result of subjective opinions, views or beliefs. Religious or moral language cannot be subjected
to such testing, and so is meaningless. They carry no fact or knowledge. Stephenson
developed Ayer’s theory in saying that ethical statements do not just state a person’s opinion of
something; rather it has a persuasive element to it. ‘I disapprove of abortion, you should too’.

• Emotivism, whilst not widely accepted as a rational approach to ethical decision making, has
had an influence in 20th century discussion as it forces philosophers to consider ethical
language.
 Emotivism Evaluation
Strengths:
– Ayer might be wrong to compare emotive
responses to moral statements as moral
judgements appeal to reasons.
– Emotivism reduces moral reactions about
such atrocities such as genocide, murder
or rape to subjective personal feelings.
– Emotivism can only be right if every
attempt to give morality an objective
rational justification has failed.
– Ayer and Stephenson’s work has forced
philosophers to consider the meaning of
ethical statements.
– Naturalism came under criticism because
of its simplistic account of moral
knowledge.
– Intuitionists don’t agree on the moral
principles that they maintain are self-
evident. Outlines unrealistic propositions of
philosophical debate concerning religious
language and epistemology in general.
– Not prescriptive, gives freedom of human
choice and emotion.
– Allows humanity to see the importance of
personal, simple subjectivism in relation to
the thoughts and actions of others.
Weaknesses:
• No method to make moral decisions
• Only analyses the content of moral
language
• Descriptive vs. normative ethical
theory
• Why should one person’s beliefs be
more convincing than another’s? On
what basis?
• Emotivism appears to be guilty of the
same trap as the Naturalistic Fallacy,
which G. E. Moore accused Natural
Moral Law of falling into. This is that
Emotivists appear to confuse the
means (emotions) with the end (moral
statements): 'When they say, 'Pleasure
is good', we cannot believe that they
merely mean, 'Pleasure is pleasure'
and nothing more than that?' (Moore
p.12)
 Prescriptivism
RM Hare argued that moral statements weren’t
merely descriptive (describing our beliefs) and
persuasive, he said they were prescriptive and
universal. When I say “Murder is wrong”, I am
writing a law which I believe others should
follow. Hare thinks that reason plays an
important role in ethics. He agrees with Kant that
moral rules should be universalisable, and that
we should ‘do unto others as you would have
done unto yourself’.
 Prescriptivism
– Hare's Universal Prescriptivism attempts to provide a middle way
between the extremes of realism and non-realism in connection with
ethical language. Although clearly there is a need to define notions
such as 'good' there is a danger that if our definitions become too well-
defined and restrictive they will become irrelevant as societies and
people change. Thus Hare advocates a form of critical realism in terms
of ethical language in that, for example, although some basic idea of
'good' is needed, the actual description of 'good' can change as it is
subject to epistemological limitations.

– Hare believed moral statements needed to have a universal quality

about them. If this were not the case then it would be impossible for
people in different cultures to agree on moral issues. That people can
go to other countries and understand moral codes, laws etc. means
there must be some common understanding of morality (or good). This
is despite the differences which may exist in the actual description of
what constitutes 'good' and 'moral' behaviour

– For Hare ethical statements are facts. However, ethical statements are
not limited by their descriptive content.