WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T1 Ethical Thought

Key quote There is nothing about simple properties which implies that they are non- natural. There is nothing incoherent about a simple natural or metaphysical property. Consequently, one cannot conclude that goodness is a non-natural property simply by showing that it is a simple property. One has to argue for non-naturalness in some other way. (Hutchinson) However, there are clear challenges to Naturalism. Moore argued that contrary to ethical Naturalism, ethical statements are a priori matters of truth just as with mathematics and can be identified through use of one’s intuition. In this sense ethical propositions are very different to non-ethical propositions. Firstly, Hume’s ‘is-ought problem’ can be used to show that Naturalism is wrong – you cannot derive a value from a fact. Therefore, ethical statements are not the same as non-ethical statements. Secondly, the ethical term ‘good’ is indefinable because it is a simple notion like the word yellow but it is also self-evident; non- ethical statements are not self-evident and so not the same as ethical statements. Thirdly, the term good always raises an open-ended question when we attempt to define its meaning with reference to a natural or non-ethical property. All these arguments present ethical propositions and language as very different from non- ethical statements. It could be argued that ethical language is value laden in a different way from non-ethical language. For example, the statement ‘this is a good door’ is not an ethical statement and yet uses the word good. The judgement made may be down to its specific purpose, such as opening easily, looking good, retaining heat in a house or to its durability. However, when we make the statement, ‘this is a good person’, the goodness element is not entirely about ‘purpose’ if we did have one but is more about the person’s moral qualities. It is something very different and so linguistically, ethical statements are very different from non-ethical statements. We could maintain that ethical and non-ethical statements are the same, as maintained by Ethical Naturalism. Ethical Naturalism would reject Moore’s linguistic analysis for a more pragmatic and empirical approach to ethics. Ethics is about action and not about a priori concepts. Evidence abounds to support this and also the fact that contemporary science (biology and psychology) are working towards a suitable, empirical explanation. Alternatively, we could conclude that ethical and non-ethical statements are entirely different matters. This could be by arguing that ethical understanding of good is innate and accessed through our intuition. The support of ethics being about values, debates and judgements adds strength to this position. The evaluative nature of ethics, however, is not confined to ethics alone and does have some relevance in non-ethical statements. There may be somewhere where the two converge. Bradley attempted to do this but he, himself admitted that he had failed to unite the conceptual with the empirical and had to find an alternative answer to Hume’s Fork. Study tip It is vital for AO2 that you actually discuss arguments and not just explain what someone may have stated. Try to ask yourself, ‘was this a fair point to make?’, ‘is the evidence sound enough?’, ‘is there anything to challenge this argument?’, ‘is this a strong or weak argument?’ Such critical analysis will help you develop your evaluation skills.

Key questions Is empiricism (or logical positivism) all that there is to our knowledge of the world? Does the fact that there are different naturalist theories weaken this meta- ethical view? Does the fact that we ‘feel’ an ethical viewpoint is prove-able or objective mean that it really is? Is it true that you cannot derive values from facts? If good is inde nable, as Moore says, why then do so many still persist in offering de nitions of this term? So what possible conclusions could we arrive at?

DRAFT

AO2 Activity List some conclusions that could be drawn from the AO2 reasoning from the above text; try to aim for at least three different possible conclusions. Consider each of the conclusions and collect brief evidence to support each conclusion from the AO1 and AO2 material for this topic. Select the conclusion that you think is most convincing and explain why it is so. Try to contrast this with the weakest conclusion in the list, justifying your argument with clear reasoning and evidence.

The extent to which ethical statements are not objective.

27