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

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

family/society and challenge them morally? Therefore, there must be a basis for morality other than human emotion.

Key questions Is it really true that moral discussions really have no point? If societies create morality how does one account for people in those societies challenging moral norms? Are moral statements really at the same level as statements used in advertising and other forms of persuasion? Are there not certain activities that are simply ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ or, alternatively, ‘good’ or ‘right’? Can’t we prove that there are moral absolutes by looking at common moral themes shared by societies across the world?

Key quote The central ethical terms – ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – only have emotive meanings, of expressing approval or disapproval. But many moral terms (‘steal’, ‘honesty’, ‘respect’) have both descriptive and emotive meanings. To be told that someone is ‘honest’ is to learn something about them. For instance, they can’t be honest while lying frequently! And whether someone lies frequently is a matter of fact. But the term ‘honest’ isn’t just a description; it also has an emotive meaning of approval. (Lacewing) All three theories have their strengths and their weaknesses. It could be suggested that they look at different aspects of ethics. For instance, Emotivism tends to focus on how the propositions are used (Stevenson) whereas Naturalism tends to calculate decisions based upon evidence and experience. Intuitionism is unique in that it considers the obligatory nature and how ethical awareness compels us to behave. Would there be any use trying to adopt Bradley’s Hegelian dialectical methodology and synthesise through combining all aspects and seeing them as different ways of achieving the same goal? Depending on which line of argument is accepted one could conclude that there is no real answer and that any of Naturalism (or Emotivism, or Intuitionism) is superior to the other theories. Indeed, since there is no way, ultimately, to prove what is the source of our morality, judging that one of these meta-ethical positions is superior is not possible. In addition, it could be concluded that there is no proof that there is an objective or absolute source of morality, then Naturalism or Emotivism has to be superior to the other theories.

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 the different meta-ethical theories encourage moral debate

62