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

WJEC / Eduqas Religious Studies for A Level Year 2 and A2 Religion and Ethics

Key quote In normative ethics any description of what is the case is attended by considerations of what is to be felt and done about it; the beliefs that are in question are preparatory to guiding or redirecting attitudes. (Stevenson)

Key quote It is disagreement in attitude, which imposes a characteristic type or organisation on the beliefs that may serve indirectly to resolve it, that chiefly distinguishes ethical issues from those of pure science. (Stevenson)

According to Stevenson, what happens in ethical debate is that people are trying to change others’ attitudes not their beliefs. It would be valid to say that these attitudes are just describing the feelings of the individuals involved; however, if we account for emotive meaning we can see that each is trying to affect the others’ feelings and influence them. The disagreement is a disagreement not about attitudes – the debate concerns not a focus on how one attitude is better than another – but rather it is a disagreement in attitudes towards the issue in hand. Therefore, Emotivism can explain why people disagree about morality without making ethical debate meaningless. In fact, Emotivism makes ethical debate meaningful.

Remembering that the chemical composition of water is H 2 0 and that the atoms are joined by covalent bonding is a proposition about belief according to Stevenson.

DRAFT

Key quotes It is thus possible for there to be meaningful agreement in ethics, and the emotivist theory cannot be criticised on the grounds that it excludes this possibility. (Norman) One advantage of this theory is that it easily explains how and why it is that moral judgements motivate us. If moral language were just descriptive, stating how things are, why would that get us to act in certain ways? We need to care. And what we care about is captured in our attitudes to the world. (Lacewing) Challenges to Emotivism Mary Warnock points out that Emotivism is too broad a theory for ethical language. It is not precise enough because it does not differentiate between ethical and non-ethical emotive use of language. For example, if emotivism attempts to influence someone’s attitude then how exactly is an advertisement for donations to Water Aid different from advertising a McDonald’s burger as 100% pure beef with nothing added in order to suggest it is healthy food? Other general challenges include the fact that ethical language and debate is not always ‘emotive’, sometimes we use it to distance ourselves from others’ views or indeed display indifference and not moral judgement and some see morality and ethical debate as a rational and logical process of reasoning. We now look at three more specific challenges. No basic moral principles can be established A general criticism of Emotivism is that the theory only values meta-ethics. Ayer used meta-ethics to reduce ethical statements to mere sentiments that express no factual information whatsoever. If this is the case then no basic moral principles can be established. Likewise, Stevenson confined his approach to meta-ethics in that he looked specifically at the meaning and use of language. Even when he applied this to ethical statements there was no real insight offered into meta- ethical definitions or normative principles.

Specification content Challenges: no basic moral principles can be established; ethical debate becomes a pointless activity; there is no universal agreement that some actions are wrong.

1.29 According to Stevenson are beliefs showing ethical conviction?

56