The different ways in which good is used in meta-ethics Essay Example for Free

The contrary offices in which upright is used in meta- example philosophy EssayExamine the different ways in which undecomposed is used in meta-ethicsAnything people okay of must be good Discuss.Meta-ethics is the part of ethics which investigates the true nature of ethical statements and its other properties. It questions what it is to be lessonly right or wrong.Meta-ethics goes into two categories these universe cognitivism and non-cognitivism.Cognitivists or Natrualists say that clean-living statements chance upon the world. If I were to say that remove is wrong, then the cognitivist would say that I have recognised an asset of unworthiness to the act of murder. Whether or non murder has an asset of wrongness is objective, therefore this statement is either objectively true or false. However Ethical Naturalism states that good butt be specialized, therefore an action is able to be found good or elusive by studying the empirical evidence and weighing up all the facts, hence moral statements can be verified and falsified.They also base their views on that on that good is found in fulfilling the consumption of the object, this is based on the Aristotelian views. So if we were to poll euthanasia to see whether it is good we would have to put together the evidence and weigh out the good points and the bad points, and how it relates to everybody involved felicity. This is much like the hedonic concretion in utilitarianism where everybody is considered in the decision making process. The word good is used by Ethical Natrualists to describe a certain act that has been proven by the empirical evidence to give the highest amount of happiness and is found to have no or a minor bad effect.Intuitionists or non-naturalists recall that you cannot analyse good as a property, so therefore cannot believe in anything that people recognise as good. They also believe that if it is contradicted a duty you ought to know, as in the Prima Facie Duty. Intui tionists approve of actions as they believe it is your recognition that is telling you to make a decision, in a reason you know always what to do in moral or ethical dilemmas, we have a priori sense of moral truths. R therefore if your moral intuition is telling them what there doing, or about to do is good then Intuitionists would approve of this act.However one could then argue that then if your moral intuition is telling you that it is good to murder then in a sense they may have to approve of this action if it is a priori acquaintance that this is what they think is good. This is a main criticism of Intuitionism as everyones intuition varies subjectively according to every individual. Peoples views vary, for voice more or less by claim that they instinctively know that that taking drugs is wrong, but others may dis take.This seems to show intuition comes from social conditioning and how one is raised, rather than having a priori knowledge of good and bad. Thus, meaning tha t ethical and moral intuition varies between different cultures and backgrounds. On the other hand, some other ethical theories suggest that we dont get hold of or have this moral intuition we learn how to deal with moral dilemmas intellectual, moral and cardinal virtues in Virtue Ethics or in Kantian Ethics we act throughout a sense of duty and reason.Cognitivists believe that good is what we can prove to be a result of empirical evidence, so when we bring all the facts together the end result shows that it is good. Emotivism is a branch of Cognitivism which was brought about by A.J Ayer, in Emotivism he suggested that by making a moral statement one is expressing the personal feelings and within them argon trying to persuade others to do as they ar with that moral statement he believed that analytical and unreal statements ar the only significant statements. Therefore Ayer thought by using the word good we are subjectively showing what we feel to be good consequently making th e word meaningless and not objective.Ayer followed on his influence from philosophers such as G.E Moore, David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein whom was part of the Vienna Circle who invented Logical Positivism which is the possible action that any true claim has to be proven by sense experience therefore final that ethical statements cannot me true claims as they cannot be verified through sense experiences. This agrees with Ayers claim that ethical statements are a product of feelings.Non-cogntivists however make a clear difference between facts and values believe that no ethical statement can be proved right or wrong, or similarly good or bad e.g. abortion is wrong.Within Non-cogntivism lies Prescriptivism. It tells us what ought to be done and that these statements are moral because they are universal. Hare believes ethical statements to be universal because when you say, you ought to do this it relates to everyone in that or similar situation, as he considered ethical statement s to be imperatives. He also saw the difference between the two types of the engagement of the word good, it can be used as an adjective e.g. It is a good chair, and in the normative sense in telling others what is correct and right.Perscriptivists believe if we state something to be good that we are plausive of something and therefore are saying others should approve of it too. Hare would then say that if people are authorize of this action then the action is good.Overall, contained within Non-cognitivism Emotivists and Perscriptivists both believe that the word good is subjective and is way for us to prescribe or persuade our opinions onto others, therefore giving the word no objective moral truth.The statement Anything people approve of must be good can be discussed by Cognitivists they would come out at whether or not people would approve of action as empirical evidence. They would not agree with this statement due to the fact may be seen to others as wrong, or may cause so me sort of pain, and may stop the fulfilment of a purpose. G.E Moore states that by proving ethical statements commits the naturalistic fallacy, which is that the word good cannot be defined by using natural facts. This idea by Moore is based on work by David Hume who said an is cannot result from an ought, in conclusion Moore and Hume would disagree with the above statement as we cannot define the word good.Moore believed that good is an unanalysable property in which we use to describe what we know from our moral intuition (Intuitionism).